Military Personnel: Number of Formally Reported Applications for 
Conscientious Objectors Is Small Relative to the Total Size of	 
the Armed Forces (28-SEP-07, GAO-07-1196).			 
                                                                 
Section 587 of the John Warner National Defense Authorization Act
for Fiscal Year 2007 required GAO to address (1) the trends in	 
the number of conscientious objector applications for the active 
and reserve components during calendar years 2002 through 2006;  
(2) how each component administers its process for evaluating	 
conscientious objector applications; and (3) whether, upon	 
discharge, conscientious objectors are eligible for the same	 
benefits as other former servicemembers. GAO's review included	 
the Coast Guard components. GAO compiled numbers of applications 
based on data provided by the Armed Forces. However, these	 
numbers do not include the numbers of applications that are not  
formally reported to the components' headquarters. Also, the	 
Defense Manpower Data Center does not maintain separate data on  
numbers of applications for conscientious objector status; it	 
does maintain data on reasons for separation. GAO used these data
to help assess the reasonableness of the component-provided data 
and to compile demographic data.				 
-------------------------Indexing Terms------------------------- 
REPORTNUM:   GAO-07-1196					        
    ACCNO:   A76891						        
  TITLE:     Military Personnel: Number of Formally Reported	      
Applications for Conscientious Objectors Is Small Relative to the
Total Size of the Armed Forces					 
     DATE:   09/28/2007 
  SUBJECT:   Armed forces reserves				 
	     General military discharges			 
	     Military compensation				 
	     Military discharges				 
	     Military leave					 
	     Military operations				 
	     Military personnel 				 
	     Military reserve personnel 			 
	     Statistical data					 
	     Veterans benefits					 

******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO Product.                                                 **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-1196

   

     * [1]Results in Brief
     * [2]Background
     * [3]The Number of Applications for Conscientious Objection Was S
     * [4]Conscientious Objector Application Process Is Consistent Acr
     * [5]Conscientious Objectors May Receive the Same Benefits as Oth
     * [6]Agency Comments
     * [7]GAO Contact
     * [8]Acknowledgments
     * [9]GAO's Mission
     * [10]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

          * [11]Order by Mail or Phone

     * [12]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
     * [13]Congressional Relations
     * [14]Public Affairs

                 United States Government Accountability Office

Report to Congressional Committees

GAO

September 2007

MILITARY PERSONNEL

 Number of Formally Reported Applications for Conscientious Objectors Is Small
                 Relative to the Total Size of the Armed Forces

GAO-07-1196

MILITARY PERSONNEL

  Number of Formally Reported Applications for Conscientious Objectors IsSmall
  Relative to the Total Size of the Armed Forces

    What GAO Found

During calendar years 2002 through 2006, the active and reserve components
reported processing 425 applications for conscientious objector status.
This number is small relative to the Armed Forces' total force of
approximately

2.3 million servicemembers. Of the 425 applications the components
reported processing, 224 (53 percent) were approved; 188 (44 percent) were
denied; and 13 (3 percent) were pending, withdrawn, closed, or no
information was provided.

Number of Conscientious Objector Applications Reported, Calendar Years
2002-2006              
Component                  2002   2003     2004     2005     2006    Total 
Army                         25    47          53    33          23    181 
Army Reserve                  2        8       14    9            3     36 
Army National Guard           1        7       11    7            0     26 
Navy                          8        2        3    9            9     31 
Navy Reserve a                0        0        0    0            0      0 
Air Force                     2    15          10    12           6     45 
Air Force Reserve             1        2        1    0            0      4 
Air National Guard            1        1        0    1            2      5 
Marine Corps                  8        8       11    6           10     43 
Marine Corps Reserve          7    21          14    5            3     50 
Coast Guard                   1        1        1    0            0      3 
Coast Guard Reserve           0        1        0    0            0      1 
Total                        56   113      118       82          56    425 

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

^The Navy Reserve reported no applications during this period.

Each component considers applications from servicemembers who wish to be
classified as conscientious objectors. Each component's process is
essentially the same, taking an average of about 7 months to process an
application. After the servicemember submits an application, arrangements
are made for a military chaplain and a psychiatrist to interview the
applicant. An investigating officer holds a hearing and prepares a report.
An authorized official or board makes the final decision and informs the
commanding officer, who informs the applicant that he or she has or has
not met the burden of proof necessary to establish the claim. Officials
from all the components stated that they attempt to temporarily reassign
applicants to noncombatant duties while their applications are pending.

Conscientious objector status is not considered when determining
eligibility for benefits; the primary determinant is the type of
discharge--honorable or under honorable conditions (general). Of those 224
servicemembers whose applications were approved for conscientious objector
status, 207 received honorable discharges, 14 received general discharges,
and information on the remaining 3 was not available. In addition to the
characterization of discharge, a servicemember may have to meet other
eligibility requirements--including years of service--to receive certain
Veterans Affairs benefits.

                 United States Government Accountability Office

                                    Contents

Letter       [15]Results in Brief BackgroundThe Number of Applications 1 3 
                for Conscientious Objection Was Small Conscientious       5 8 
                Objector Application Process Is Consistent Across          11 
                Components Conscientious Objectors May Receive the Same    17 
                Benefits as Other Discharged Servicemembers Agency         23 
                Comments                                                      
Appendix I   [16]Demographic Information on Known Applicants for        26 
                Conscientious Objector Status, Calendar Years 20022006        
Appendix II  [17]Scope and Methodology                                  31 
Appendix III [18]Data on Active Components' Servicemembers Separated    35 
                as Conscientious Objectors, Calendar Years 1994-2006          
Appendix IV          [19]GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments          37 
Tables                   [20]Table 1: Number of Conscientious Objector     
                 Applications Reported, Calendar Years 2002-2006 Table 2:     
                   Number of Reported Applications That Were Approved and     
                Denied, Calendar Years 2002-2006 Table 3: Average Days to 9   
                 Process Reported Applications for Conscientious Objector 10  
                       Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006 Table 4: Benefits 16  
                                                    Available to Veterans 19  

               Table 5: Number of Reported Servicemembers Discharged with  
                   Conscientious Objector Status Granted Honorable or      
                         General Discharges by Component, Calendar Years 2002
           [21]2006                                                        23 
                  Table 6: Gender and Rank of Applicants for Conscientious    
                                                                  Objector    
                        [22]Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006               26 
            Table 7: Age of Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status,     
                            [23]Calendar Years 2002-2006                   27 
                 Table 8: Years of Service of Applicants for Conscientious    
                                                                  Objector    
                       [24]Status for Calendar Years 2002-2006             28 
                 Table 9: Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status Who    
                                                                    Served    
                  [25]in ONE, OEF, or OIF, Calendar Years 2002-2006        29 
           Table 10: List of Organizations Contacted to Obtain Information    
                                                                        on    
                             [26]Conscientious Objectors                   33 
Figures                                                                    
           [27]Figure 1: VA's Organizational Hierarchy                      8 
              Figure 2: Overview of the Eight Steps in the Process for        
                    [28]Determining Conscientious Objector Status          12 
           Figure 3: Servicemembers Discharged as Conscientious Objectors,    
                            [29]Calendar Years 1994-2006                   36 

Abbreviations

DMDC                      Defense Manpower Data Center 
DOD                       Department of Defense                            
OEF                       Operation Enduring Freedom                       
OIF                       Operation Iraqi Freedom              
ONE                       Operation Noble Eagle                            
VA                        Department of Veterans Affairs 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.

United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548

September 28, 2007

Congressional Committees

After the adoption of an all-volunteer force in 1973, the United States no
longer drafted individuals for its military force. Before this change,
individuals could apply for conscientious objector status and, if
approved, be exempted from the draft. Servicemembers in today's
all-volunteer force--which is comprised of approximately 2.3 million
active and reserve ^[30]1 members, including the Coast Guard--can also
apply for conscientious objector status and, if approved, either leave the
military before the end of their service obligations or be reassigned to
noncombatant duties. Although recruits are asked on entrance applications
if they oppose war, the U.S. Armed Forces' ^[31]2 conscientious objector
policies ^[32]3 recognize that servicemembers' religious, ethical, or
moral beliefs can change over time and lead to conscientious objection to
war. For example, after joining the military, a servicemember might
convert to a religion that opposes war or have other life-altering
experiences (e.g., exposure to combat or the death of a family member)
that change the servicemember's religious, ethical, or moral beliefs.
Therefore, the Armed Forces have policies and procedures in place to
consider applications from servicemembers who wish to be classified as
conscientious objectors.
^1The term reserve or reserve components includes the Reserve and National
Guard components.

^2For this report, the term U.S. Armed Forces includes (1) the Army, (2) the
Army National Guard, (3) the Army Reserve, (4) the Navy, (5) the Navy
Reserve, (6) the Air Force, (7) the Air National Guard, (8) the Air Force
Reserve, (9) the Marine Corps, (10) the Marine Corps Reserve, (11) the
U.S. Coast Guard, and (12) the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve. Unlike the other
services, the U.S. Coast Guard and the U.S. Coast Guard Reserve are
agencies within the Department of Homeland Security, not the Department of
Defense. Upon the declaration of war if Congress so directs in the
declaration or when the President directs, the Coast Guard shall operate
as a service in the Navy, and shall so continue until the President, by
Executive order, transfers the Coast Guard back to the Department of
Homeland Security. While operating as a service in the Navy, the Coast
Guard shall be subject to the orders of the Secretary of the Navy who may
order changes in Coast Guard operations to render them uniform, to the
extent he deems advisable, with Navy operations. 14 U.S.C. S3.

^3Department of Defense Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5,
2007); Army Regulation 600-43, Conscientious Objection (Aug. 21, 2006);
Navy Military Personnel Manual, Article 1900-20, Convenience of the
Government Separation Based on Conscientious Objection (Enlisted and
Officers) (Aug. 22, 2002); Air Force Instruction 363204, Procedures for
Applying as a Conscientious Objector (July 15, 1994); Marine Corps Order
1306.16E, Conscientious Objectors (Nov. 21, 1986); and Coast Guard
Commandant Instruction 1900.8, Conscientious Objectors and the Requirement
to Bear Arms (Nov. 30, 1990). According to U.S. Coast Guard officials, the
Coast Guard is not required to comply with the Department of Defense's
instruction; however, its regulation closely follows the Department of
Defense instruction.

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2007
^[33]4 directed us to review the Armed Forces' conscientious objector
process. Specifically, we addressed (1) the trends in the number of
servicemembers applying for conscientious objector status during calendar
years 2002 through 2006; (2) how each component of the U.S. Armed Forces
administers its process for approving or denying conscientious objector
applications; and (3) whether conscientious objectors are eligible to
receive the same benefits that other servicemembers are eligible to
receive after they are discharged from the military. In addition to the
mandate, as agreed with your offices, we are providing demographic
information on servicemembers who separated as conscientious objectors
between calendar years 2002 and 2006. This demographic information is
presented in appendix I.

To address the first objective--to report on trends in the numbers of
applications for conscientious objector status--we used data provided by
each component for calendar years 2002 through 2006. We did not report on
data between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2001, as directed in the
mandate, because several of the components did not have these data
available or believed the data to be unreliable. The Defense Manpower Data
Center (DMDC) does not maintain information on applications for
conscientious objector status but does maintain information on
separations. We obtained personnel information on separations for
conscientious objectors from DMDC because it maintains data for all of the
Armed Forces, including the Coast Guard, dating back to the early 1970s.
To assess the reliability of the conscientious objector applications and
separations data we received from the components and DMDC, we
(1) performed electronic testing; (2) compared data provided by the
components with data provided by DMDC to assess their reasonableness;
(3) reviewed information about the systems that produced the data; and
(4) interviewed component and DMDC officials to identify known
problems or limitations in the data and to understand how DMDC
receives
and processes data from the components. When we found discrepancies, we
worked with the component or DMDC to understand why the discrepancies had
occurred and to gather the most complete data possible. We found
limitations with the consistency and completeness of the data that could
result in a possible understatement of the number of applications, but we
believe that the data are sufficiently reliable to demonstrate overall
trends in the numbers of applications, approvals, and denials for
applications submitted for conscientious objector status during calendar
years 2002 through 2006. However, the numbers of applications maintained
by the components do not include those applications that did not get
formally reported to the components' headquarters. To address the second
objective, we analyzed each component's regulation to identify its
processes for reviewing conscientious objector applications. For the third
objective, we reviewed relevant documentation about veterans' benefits,
such as the Department of Veterans Affairs' (VA) guidance and benefits
booklet. ^[34]5 To address all three objectives, we interviewed
knowledgeable officials--including those responsible for the conscientious
objector process and its guidance and regulations--from the Office of the
Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), DMDC, and each of
the military services and their reserve components within the Department
of Defense (DOD); from the Coast Guard within the Department of Homeland
Security; and from the VA. ^[35]6 To obtain demographic information on
applicants for conscientious objector status, we provided DMDC with
applications data provided by the components; DMDC then matched this
information to personnel data it maintains. A more thorough description of
our scope and methodology is provided in [36]appendix II.

^4Pub. L. No. 109-364, S587 (2006).

We conducted our audit work between November 2006 and August 2007 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

  [37]Results in Brief

For calendar years 2002 through 2006, the active and reserve military
components reported processing 425 applications for conscientious objector
status. Despite the possible understatement in the number of applications
for conscientious objector status provided by the components, this number
is small relative to the Armed Force's total force
of approximately 2.3 million servicemembers. Of the 425 applications the
components reported processing during 2002 through 2006, 224 (53 percent)
were approved; 188 (44 percent) were denied; and 13 (3 percent) were
pending, withdrawn, closed, or no information was provided.

^5For example, VA, Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents (Washington,
D.C.: 2007).

^6We did not talk to  officials from the Coast  Guard Reserve or the  Marine
Corps Reserve  because active  component  officials were  responsible  for
their processes.

All the components follow the same basic steps to administer their
conscientious objector application processes:

     o The servicemember submits an application for conscientious objector
       status.
     o The commanding officer or authorized official assigns a military
       chaplain and a psychiatrist to conduct required interviews.
     o The applicant's commanding officer appoints an investigating officer.
     o The investigating officer holds an informal hearing.
     o The investigating officer prepares a report, including a
       recommendation to approve or deny the application.
     o The commanding officer reviews the record and makes a recommendation
       to approve or deny the application.
     o An authorized official or board makes the final decision and informs
       the commanding officer.
     o The commanding officer or authorized official informs the applicant of
       the final decision.

Officials from each of the components said that an attempt is made to
reassign applicants to noncombatant duties while their applications are
pending. On average, the components took about 7 months to process an
application for a servicemember requesting conscientious objector status.
The Air Force Reserve's process typically took the longest, at an average
of nearly a full year (357 days), while the Navy's processing time
averaged about 5 months (160 days). Component officials said that
processing may be prolonged when, for example, an application must be
returned to the applicant for additional information. According to the
components, they inform the applicant of whether or not he or she met the
burden of proof necessary to establish the claim.

According to Veterans Affairs' benefits guidance, depending on the type of
discharge, there are no differences between the benefits that
conscientious objectors are eligible to receive and those that other
servicemembers are eligible to receive when they are discharged from the
military. The type of discharge--honorable or under honorable conditions
(general)--not status as a conscientious objector, is the primary
determinant of the benefits for which the servicemember is eligible. A
servicemember with an honorable discharge may be eligible to receive all
veterans' benefits, including education and training, health care, and
disability compensation. A servicemember with an under honorable
conditions (general) discharge may be eligible to receive all but
Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty Education and Training benefits. Of the 224
servicemembers whose applications were approved for conscientious objector
status, 207 (92 percent) received honorable discharges, 14 (6 percent)
received under honorable conditions (general) discharges, and information
on the discharges of the remaining 3 (1 percent) was not available. In
addition to the characterization of discharge, a servicemember may have to
meet other eligibility requirements--including years of service, period of
service (e.g., during a period of war), or an injury or disease that was
incurred or aggravated during military activity-- to receive certain VA
benefits.

DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and VA were provided a draft of
this report and had no comments on the findings. The Department of
Homeland Security and VA provided technical comments, which were
incorporated as appropriate.

                                 [38]Background

The Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness)--who reports to
the Deputy Secretary of Defense--is responsible for developing the DOD
instruction for the conscientious objector application process and for
monitoring all of the DOD components for compliance with the
departmentwide instruction. ^[39]7 The Secretaries of the components, or
their designees, are responsible for implementing the process and for
making final decisions on whether to approve or deny conscientious
objector applications. According to Coast Guard officials, the Coast
Guard's Director of Personnel Management is responsible for overseeing its
conscientious objector application process, including maintaining the
instruction. However, the Director of Human Resources makes the final
decision on whether to approve or disapprove conscientious objector
applications. ^[40]8 The Director of Personnel Management reports to the
Director of Human Resources and--through the chain of command--to the
Commandant of the Coast Guard.

^7 DOD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5, 2007).

^8Unlike DOD, the Department of Homeland Security does not have a
departmentwide instruction, and the Coast Guard does not report to the
Department of Homeland Security about the conscientious objector process.

According to guidance and regulations established by the components, in
order to be granted conscientious objector status, servicemembers must
submit clear and convincing evidence that (1) they are opposed to
participation in any form of war; (2) their opposition is based on
religious, ethical, or moral beliefs; and (3) their beliefs are sincere
and deeply held. ^[41]9 These regulations do not recognize selective
conscientious objection, that is, opposition to a specific war or
conflict. The components' regulations recognize two categories of
applicants for conscientious objector status. A class 1-O applicant
sincerely objects to all participation in any form of war and is
discharged if the application is approved. A class l-A-O applicant
sincerely objects to participating as a combatant in any form of war but
has convictions that permit military service as a noncombatant. With the
exception of the Army and its reserve components, the components have the
discretion to either reassign an approved class l-A-O conscientious
objector to noncombatant duties--if they are available--or discharge the
servicemember. Army regulation states that servicemembers approved for
1-A-O status are not eligible for discharge. These servicemembers continue
to serve the remainder of their contract and, when necessary, they are
retrained in an occupational specialty that does not require them to bear
arms.

DMDC, which is a support organization within DOD that reports to the Under
Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), maintains various types of
data on military personnel, dating back to the early 1970s, such as
separations data on servicemembers discharged as conscientious objectors.
The majority of these data are provided to DMDC by the military components
and are the source for the separations information now being provided to
Congress. DMDC's mission is to deliver timely and high-quality support to
its customers and to ensure that the data it receives from different
sources are consistent, accurate, and appropriate when used to respond to
inquiries. DMDC customers include DOD organizations such as the Armed
Forces, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, and the Joint Staff, as
well as external organizations, such as Congress. These organizations rely
on data supplied by DMDC to help them in making
decisions about the military. DMDC's Active Duty Military Personnel
Transaction File and the Reserve Components Common Personnel Data System
contain information about servicemembers who separate from the Army, the
Navy, the Air Force, the Marine Corps, and the Coast Guard, and from their
reserve components.

^9 DOD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5, 2007); Army
Regulation 600-43, Conscientious Objection (Aug. 21, 2006); Navy Military
Personnel Manual, Article 1900-020, Convenience of the Government
Separation Based on Conscientious Objection (Enlisted and Officers) (Aug.
22, 2002); Air Force Instruction 36-3204, Procedures for Applying as a
Conscientious Objector (July 15, 1994); Marine Corps Order 1306.16E,
Conscientious Objectors (Nov. 21, 1986); and Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction 1900.8, Conscientious Objectors and the Requirement to Bear
Arms (Nov. 30, 1990).

The VA is responsible for providing a broad range of federal benefits and
services to veterans and their families, working through the field
facilities of its three major organizations located throughout the United
States:

     o The Veterans Health Administration manages and operates VA's medical
       care system and administers health care benefits.
     o The Veterans Benefits Administration manages and operates VA programs
       that provide financial and other forms of assistance to veterans,
       their dependents, and their survivors. This organization administers
       disability compensation, pension, vocational rehabilitation and
       employment, education and training, home loan guaranty, and life
       insurance benefits.
     o The National Cemetery Administration operates 125 national cemeteries
       in the United States and its territories. It also oversees the
       operations of 33 soldiers' lots, confederate cemeteries, and monument
       sites.

The Board of Veterans' Appeals is a statutory board that makes decisions
on appeals under the authority of the Secretary of VA. ^[42]10 Members of
the board review benefit claims determinations made at the field
facilities and issue decisions on appeals. (See fig. 1 for VA's
organizational structure.)

^10 38 U.S.C. S 7101.

                    Figure 1: VA's Organizational Hierarchy

In 1993, we reported that between fiscal years 1988 and 1990, DOD
processed up to 200 applications annually for conscientious objector
status and that about 80 to 85 percent of these applications were
approved. ^[43]11 During the Persian Gulf War, which was fought in fiscal
year 1991, the number of applications rose to 447, and about 61 percent
were approved. We noted in that report that, though the number of
applications more than doubled in fiscal year 1991, it was small compared
to the total number of military personnel, indicating that conscientious
objectors had no measurable impact on the readiness of the all-volunteer
force.

  The Number of Applications for Conscientious Objection Was Small

Despite possible understatement, the numbers of known applications for
conscientious objector status for calendar years 2002 through 2006 were
relatively small compared to the size of the force, which is approximately
2.3 million servicemembers. (See app. II for a detailed description of the
methods we used to determine data reliability.) Of the 425 applications
for conscientious objector status the components reported that they
processed during this period, 224, or about 53 percent, were approved;
188, or about 44 percent, were denied; and 13, or about 3 percent, were
pending, withdrawn, closed, or no information was provided. Further, these
data show that the overall number of reported applications for
conscientious objector status increased in 2003 and 2004 and then  dropped
in 2005 and 2006 (see table 1). ^[44]12

^11GAO, Conscientious Objectors: Number of Applications Remained Small During
the Persian Gulf War, GAO/NSIAD-94-35 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 9, 1993).

Table 1: Number of Conscientious Objector Applications Reported,  Calendar
Years 2002-2006

                         2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 Total

                              Army 254753 3323 181

                           Army Reserve 2 8 14 9 3 36

                       Army National Guard 1 7 11 7 0 26

                                 Navy 82399 31

Navy Reserve^a 0 0 0 0 0

                           Air Force 2 15 10 12 6 45

Air Force Reserve 1 2 1 0 0

Air National Guard 1 1 0 1 2

Marine Corps 8 8 11 6 10

                      Marine Corps Reserve 7 21 14 5 3 50

Coast Guard 1 1 1 0 0

Coast Guard Reserve 0 1 0 0 0

                           Total 56 113 118 82 56 425

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Notes: We are not able to provide data on applications between September
11 and December 31, 2001, because not all of the components maintained
these data.

Applications do not equal the number of applicants because two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aThe Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

DMDC-provided data similarly shows a small number of separations, or
discharges, for conscientious objectors. See appendix III for more
information from the DMDC-provided separations data.

The application approval rate was 55 percent for the Army, 84 percent for
the Navy, 62 percent for the Air Force, 33 percent for the Marine Corps,
and 33 percent for the Coast Guard. The application approval rate was 44
percent for the Army Reserve, 58 percent for the Army National Guard, and
44 percent for the Marine Corps Reserve.

^12In appendix  I, we  present  demographic data  on the  servicemembers  who
applied for conscientious objector status during 2002 through 2006.

Table 2: Number of Reported Applications That Were Approved and Denied, Calendar Years
2002-2006
Approved,
                                           but Denied, but
                                   application           application            Applications
     Approved Approved type     Applications Denied Denied type    Applications with          
     1-O      1-A-Oa   unknownb approved     1-O    1-A-O  unknown denied       missing       
                                                           b                    datac   Total 
Army       94        5        0           99     70     10       0           80       2   181 
Army       14        2        0           16     13      2       0           15       5    36 
Reserve                                                                                       
Army         13        2        0          15      11     0        0         11       0    26 
National                                                                                      
Guard                                                                                         
Navy           18      7        1          26       4     1        0          5       0    31 
Navy           0       0        0               0   0     0        0          0       0     0 
Reserved                                                                                      
Air Force      27      1        0          28      17     0        0         17       0    45 
Air Force      0       0        2               2   0     0        1          1       1     4 
Reserve                                                                                       
Air          1         0          0          1      3     0         0         3       1     5 
National                                                                                      
Guard                                                                                         
Marine        12       2        0          14      18     7        0         25       4    43 
Corps                                                                                         
Marine        20       2        0          22      25     3        0         28       0    50 
Corps                                                                                         
Reserve                                                                                       
Coast          1       0          0          1      1     0         1         2       0     3 
Guard                                                                                         
Coast          0       0          0          0      1     0         0         1       0     1 
Guard                                                                                         
Reserve                                                                                       
Total      200       21        3             224 163     23      2          188      13   425 

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: Applications do not equal the number of applicants because two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aOf the 21 servicemembers whose 1-A-O applications were approved, 10 were
reassigned to noncombatant duties, and 11 were discharged. Of the 10 who
were reassigned, 4 were from the Army, 2 were from the Army National
Guard, 2 were from the Army Reserve, 1 was from the Marine Corps, and 1
was from the Marine Corps Reserve.

^bThe component did not identify the application type (1-O or 1-A-O).

^cIn these instances, information, such as application type (1-O versus
1-A-O status), was not provided. These applications were pending review,
withdrawn, or closed at the time of our review.

^dThe Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

Although there were 188 applications for conscientious objector status,
these applications were submitted by only 186 servicemembers, because two
servicemembers applied twice. Of the 186 servicemembers whose applications
were denied, 114 (about 61 percent) were discharged for other reasons; 62
(about 33 percent) are still serving in the military service; and there is
no information about the remaining 10 (about 5 percent). Of the 114
servicemembers who were discharged for other reasons, 33 (about 29
percent) separated after completion of their service contract; 21 (about
18 percent) were discharged for misconduct; 22 (19 percent) were separated
for medical reasons; 22 (about 19 percent) were separated for
miscellaneous reasons, including substandard performance and hardship; and
16 (about 14 percent) did not have a code designating the reason for the
discharge.

  Conscientious Objector Application Process Is Consistent Across Components
  
All components of the Armed Forces follow the same basic steps to
administer their conscientious objector application processes. ^[45]13
Figure 2 illustrates the eight steps in the process.


^13DOD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5, 2007); Army
Regulation 60043, Conscientious Objection (Aug. 21, 2006); Navy Military
Personnel Manual, Article 1900-020,Convenience of the Government
Separation Based on Conscientious Objection (Enlisted and Officers) (Aug.
22, 2002); Air Force Instruction 36-3204, Procedures for Applying as a
Conscientious Objector (July 15, 1994); Marine Corps Order 1306.16E,
Conscientious Objectors (Nov. 21, 1986); and Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction 1900.8, Conscientious Objectors and the Requirement to Bear
Arms (Nov. 30, 1990). According to
U.S. Coast Guard officials, the Coast Guard is not required to comply with
DOD's guidance; however, its regulation closely follows DOD guidance.

      Figure 2: Overview of the Eight Steps in the Process for Determining
                         Conscientious Objector Status

As shown in the process flowchart, the components attempt to reassign an
applicant to noncombatant duties while an application is pending.
Officials responsible for the conscientious objector process for each
component said that the commanding officer reassigns the applicant. While
temporarily assigned to noncombatant duties, an applicant must continue to
meet the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duties, such
as wearing the uniform and following orders. If noncombatant duties are
unavailable, an applicant must continue to fulfill the duties within the
unit. Officials from the active and reserve components of the Air Force
and the Marine Corps stated that, in the event that an applicant's unit is
deployed while the application is pending, the applicant will not be
deployed. In contrast, officials for the other components said an
applicant may deploy with his or her unit at the discretion of the
commanding officer or authorized official.

We inquired about the extent to which psychiatrists or clinical
psychologists are readily available to interview and evaluate the mental
condition of the applicants. The components' visibility over the
availability of psychiatrists and clinical psychologists varied. Army,
Army National Guard, Army Reserve, Air Force, and Air Force Reserve
officials reported that they were not aware of any difficulties in
obtaining a psychiatric or psychological evaluation. Navy and Marine Corps
officials said that they did not have visibility over this issue for
either their active or reserve components, because responsibility for
obtaining such evaluations resides at the unit level. An Air National
Guard official said that the component has a limited number of personnel
who can conduct such an evaluation and that when one of these
professionals is not available locally, the process may be delayed. Coast
Guard officials said that in remote units in the active and reserve
components where a psychiatrist or clinical psychologist is not readily
available, processing is delayed.

In addition, each component's process includes provisions to allow the
applicant to be (1) represented by legal counsel, (2) given the
opportunity to rebut the evidence in the record before the authorized
official makes a final decision, and (3) given an explanation if the
application is denied.

According to their regulations, all components allow an applicant to
obtain and pay for outside legal counsel. In addition, officials
responsible for the conscientious objector process for the Army, the Navy,
the Navy Reserve, the Air Force, the Air Force Reserve, the Marine Corps,
and the Marine Corps Reserve said that an applicant has access to free
legal advice from these components' legal offices.

Each component provides an applicant with the opportunity to rebut
information included in the record. The applicant submits the rebuttal
prior to the final processing of the application. The time frame to submit
a rebuttal varies among the components and ranges from 5 to 15 days. On
the basis of data provided by the components for calendar years 2002
through 2006, the military services took an average of about 7 months to
process an application--this includes the time allowed for applicants to
submit their rebuttals. The Air Force Reserve typically took the longest
amount of time to process an application, at an average of nearly a full
year (357 days), while the Navy's processing time averaged about 5 months
(160 days). According to component officials, processing may be prolonged
when, for example, applications must be returned to the unit or the
applicant for additional information. As stated earlier, Air National
Guard and Coast Guard officials said that personnel who can conduct
psychiatric or psychological evaluations are not always readily available
and that this may prolong the processing time. Coast Guard officials also
stated that, because they receive so few applications, it is necessary for
officials located in the field offices to reeducate themselves about the
process each time, which may prolong processing time for the applications.
Table 3 shows average application processing times by component.

Table 3: Average Days to  Process Reported Applications for  Conscientious
Objector Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006

Average number of days per Component component

                                    Army 194

Army National Guard

                                Army Reserve 230

                                    Navy 160

a

Navy Reserve

                                 Air Force 235

Air Force Reserve

Air National Guard

                                Marine Corps 231

Marine Corps Reserve

                                Coast Guard 180

Coast Guard Reserve

Average number of days for all components

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: The average number of days for all components is a weighted-average.

^aThe Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

According to the components, the commanding officer typically informs an
applicant if he or she has or has not met the burden of proof necessary to
establish the claim. In addition, officials for the Army, the Air Force,
the Marine Corps, the Coast Guard, and their reserve components stated
that when an application has been denied, the applicant is sent a
memorandum providing additional detail on the reason for the decision.
Generally, applications are denied when the servicemember has not provided
clear and convincing evidence supporting his or her claim of conscientious
objection.

Each of the components--with the exception of the Army and its reserve
components--has the discretion to reassign an approved l-A-O conscientious
objector to a noncombatant duty--if one is available--or discharge the
servicemember. In contrast, according to Army regulation, 1-A-O
conscientious objectors in the Army and its reserve components are not
eligible for discharge. According to Army officials, these servicemembers
continue to serve the remainder of their service
obligations, and when necessary are  retrained in occupations that do  not
require them to bear arms.

  Conscientious Objectors May Receive the Same Benefits as Other Discharged
  Servicemembers

In general, in accordance with component policies, ^[46]14 servicemembers
separated as conscientious objectors may be granted honorable or under
honorable conditions (general) discharges, thereby making them eligible to
receive the same benefits as other discharged servicemembers. Army, Navy,
and Air Force regulations state that conscientious objectors must be given
one of these two types of discharge. The Marine Corps and the Coast Guard
do not specify what type of discharge must be assigned to conscientious
objectors; rather, their regulations state that the type of discharge
should be determined by the member's overall service record. In accordance
with VA guidance, ^[47]15 conscientious objector status generally is not
considered when determining eligibility for any of the benefits VA offers;
^[48]16 the primary determinant for these benefits is the characterization
of discharge. ^[49]17 All servicemembers separated with an honorable or an
under honorable conditions (general) discharge are eligible for the same
VA benefits, with the exception of Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty
Education and Training benefits. ^[50]18 Whether discharged as a
conscientious objector or for other reasons, a servicemember must receive
an honorable discharge to be entitled to Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty
Education and Training benefits. ^[51]19 In addition to the
characterization of discharge, a servicemember may have to meet other
eligibility requirements--including years of service, period of service
(e.g., during a period of war), or an injury or disease that was incurred
or aggravated during military activity-- to receive certain VA benefits.
Table 4 provides an overview of the VA benefits available to veterans and
the basic eligibility requirements for each.

^14 DOD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5, 2007); Army
Regulation 60043, Conscientious Objection (Aug. 21, 2006); Navy Military
Personnel Manual, Article 1900020, Convenience of the Government
Separation Based on Conscientious Objection (Enlisted and Officers) (Aug.
22, 2002); Air Force Instruction 36-3204, Procedures for Applying as a
Conscientious Objector (July 15, 1994); Marine Corps Order 1306.16E,
Conscientious Objectors (Nov. 21, 1986); and Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction 1900.8, Conscientious Objectors and the Requirement to Bear
Arms (Nov. 30, 1990).

^15VA General Counsel Decision Assessment, 1993.

^16In accordance with 38 U.S.C. S 5303, a servicemember is not eligible for
benefits if (1) the servicemember, while his or her conscientious objector
application was pending, refused to perform military duties, wear the
uniform, or comply with lawful orders of a competent military authority;
(2) the servicemember was convicted and sentenced to a bad-conduct
discharge or dishonorable discharge at a general court marital; (3) the
servicemember, as an officer, resigned for the good of the service rather
than face a general court martial; (4) the servicemember was a deserter;
(5) the servicemember was an alien, who, it could be affirmatively shown,
requested his or her release during a period of hostilities; or (6) the
servicemember received a discharge under other than honorable conditions
as a result of an absence without official leave for a continuous period
of at least 180 days.

^17There are six characterizations of military discharge: (1) honorable,
which is appropriate when the quality of the member's service generally
has met the standards of acceptable conduct and performance of duty for
military personnel; (2) under honorable conditions (general), which is
given to servicemembers whose performance is satisfactory but is marked by
a considerable departure in duty performance and conduct expected of
servicemembers; (3) under other than honorable conditions, which
represents a serious departure from the conduct and performance expected
of all servicemembers; (4) bad conduct, which is given to servicemembers
only upon conviction at a general or special court martial; (5)
dishonorable, which is given for what the military considers the most
dishonorable of conduct and is only rendered by conviction at a general
court martial; and
(6) uncharacterized, which is given to individuals who do not complete 180
days of service.

^18VA administers other education programs that only require that a
servicemember receive a discharge under other than dishonorable
conditions.

^19If the veteran has a prior period of service that terminated honorably, he
or she may be eligible to receive education and training benefits based on
that qualifying period of service.

                    Table 4: Benefits Available to Veterans

                   VA benefit Basic eligibility requirements

                                  Health care

        * Characterization of discharge

             o Honorable
             o Under honorable conditions (general);

        * Length of Service

                * The length of service may matter depending on when the
                  veteran served. There is no length of service requirement
                  for
                *  o former enlisted persons who started active duty on or
                  before September 8, 1980, or former officers who first
                  entered active duty on or before October 17, 1981.

             o All other veterans must have 24 months of continuous active
               duty military service or meet the exception described below.
             o Former Reserve or National Guard members are eligible if they
               were activated or mobilized by a federal order and they served
               for the full period for which they were called to active
               service.

Disability    o Characterization of discharge  o Honorable                 
compensation                                                               
                   o Under honorable conditions (general);                    
                 o The veteran must have been disabled by an injury or        
                   disease incurred or aggravated during active military      
                   service.                                                   
Pension       o Characterization of discharge                              
                   o Honorable                                                
                   o Under honorable conditions (general);                    
                 o The veteran must                                           
                   o be permanently and totally disabled;                     
                   o have served 24 consecutive months of active military     
                   service, at least 1 day of which was during a period of    
                   war;a and                                                  
                   o meet certain income restrictions.                        
                 o The veteran may be eligible for a VA pension if age 65 or  
                   older and/or entitled to Social Security disability; and   
                 o the disability must have been caused by circumstances      
                   other than veteran's own willful misconduct.               

                   VA benefit Basic eligibility requirements

Montgomery GI Bill- o Characterization of discharge Active Duty education 
o Honorable and training Veterans may be eligible if

o they have completed 3 continuous years of active duty, or 2 continuous
years of active duty if they signed up for less than 3 years or have an
obligation to serve 4 years in the Selected Reserve and enter the Selected
Reserve within 1 year of discharge OR they are discharged for one of the
following reasons:

     o for the convenience of the government-if they have 30 continuous
       months of service for an obligation of 3 or more years or 20
       continuous months of service for an obligation of less than 3 years;
     o service connected disability;^b
     o hardship;
     o a medical condition diagnosed prior to joining the military;
     o a condition that interfered with performance of duty and did not
       result from misconduct; and
     o a reduction in force.

Vocational    o  Characterization  of  discharge  rehabilitation  and    o
Honorable

^employment  o Under honorable conditions (general);

     o The veteran must have a service-connected disability that is rated at
       least 20 percent with an employment handicap;^b or
     o A service-connected disability that is rated at least 10 percent with
       a serious employment handicap.

Home loan guaranty  o Characterization of discharge

     o Honorable
     o Under honorable conditions (general);

o The length of service requirement for a veteran is dependent on the
period of time during which the veteran served (e.g., Vietnam,
Post-Vietnam, or the Gulf War).

                   VA benefit Basic eligibility requirements

Life insurance

        * In general, veterans who are insured by the Servicemembers' Group
          Life Insurance program at the time of separation from the military
          are eligible to purchase Veterans Group Life Insurance provided an
          application is submitted within 1 year and 120 days from the date
          of their separation from service. Service Disabled Veterans
          Insurance is also available for those disabled veterans who were

             o released from active duty under other than dishonorable
               conditions on or after April 25, 1951;
             o rated for a service-connected disability; and
             o in good health except for any service-connected conditions.

     o The veterans must apply within 2 years of the date that VA grants
       their new service-connected disability rating.

           Burial  o Characterization of discharge from active duty^c

     o Honorable
     o Under honorable conditions (general); or

o Servicemembers who die while on active duty.

Source: GAO analysis of the VA's benefits information.

^aVeterans who entered active duty before September 8, 1980, or officers who
entered before October 16, 1981, must have served at least 90 days of
active military service, at least 1 day of which was during a period of
war. According to the Federal Benefits for Veterans and Dependents, 2007
Edition, the Persian Gulf War period began on August 2, 1990, and
continues through a date to be set by law or Presidential Proclamation.

^bA service-connected disability is one that a delegated VA representative
determines is incurred or aggravated during active military service, based
on evidence from the servicemember's medical records or a VA Compensation
and Pension examination.

^cActive-duty service beginning after September 7, 1980, as an enlisted
person, and after October 16, 1981, as an officer, must be for a minimum
of 24 consecutive months or the full period of active duty (as in the case
of Reserve or National Guard members called to active duty for a limited
duration).

To apply for VA benefits, a veteran submits an application to a veterans'
claims examiner or other qualified VA employee at a VA field facility,
where it is reviewed to ensure that it is complete and that the applicant
meets basic eligibility requirements. If it is determined that the veteran
does not meet basic eligibility requirements (i.e., the characterization
of discharge is not honorable or under honorable conditions (general)),
then the examiner or other qualified VA employee will notify the veteran
that he or she is not entitled to benefits. The veteran can then (1) seek
an upgrade in the characterization of his or her discharge through the
military component and, if successful, provide the revised discharge
papers to VA or (2) provide the examiner or other qualified VA employee
with evidence of mitigating circumstances that could lead VA to revise its
determination of the veteran's eligibility. Even if the veteran does not
provide additional information, the examiner or other qualified VA
employee will review the veteran's military personnel and service record
to determine if (1) there were mitigating circumstances surrounding the
discharge; (2) there is a period of service, other than the one for which
the veteran was discharged, upon which the benefits may be based; or (3)
despite the characterization of discharge, the veteran's service was
faithful or meritorious. For example, if it is determined after a review
of the military personnel and service record that the veteran received an
under other than honorable conditions discharge because of an absence
without official leave to see a dying parent, the veteran may still
receive VA benefits. If an examiner or other qualified VA employee
determines that a veteran with an under other than honorable conditions or
bad conduct discharge is not eligible for most VA benefits, the veteran
may still be eligible for health care for any disability incurred or
aggravated in the line of duty during active service, unless the veteran
is barred from receiving VA benefits. ^[52]20 If the veteran's military
personnel or service record indicates that he or she refused to perform
military duties, wear the uniform, or comply with lawful orders of a
competent military authority while the conscientious objector application
was pending, the veteran is barred from receiving VA benefits. ^[53]21 The
decision of the examiner or other qualified VA employee applies not only
to those benefits that the veteran was requesting at the time of the
decision but also to any future benefits he or she may seek, except for
education and training, for which the discharge must be honorable. ^[54]22
A dishonorable discharge automatically disqualifies a veteran from
receiving benefits; the examiner or other qualified VA employee does not
make decisions on dishonorable discharges. ^[55]23

A veteran who disagrees with the decision has 1 year to file an appeal
with the VA Board of Veterans Appeals. When the case comes before the
Board of Appeals, the veteran may be represented by legal counsel. If the
board decides in favor of the veteran, the veteran will be awarded the
benefit in question. If the board upholds the decision to deny benefits,
the veteran
can appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which is an
independent court and not part of the VA.

^20 38 U.S.C. S 5303.

^21 38 U.S.C. S 5303.

^22The decision of the examiner or other qualified VA employee does not apply
for Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty Education and Training benefits. The
veteran must receive an honorable discharge to be eligible for these
benefits.

^23If the individual has a prior period of service that terminated under
honorable conditions, a dishonorable discharge may not bar that individual
from receiving VA benefits.

Of the 224 servicemembers who were approved for conscientious objector
status during calendar years 2002 through 2006, 207 (92 percent) were
granted honorable discharges; 14 (6 percent) were granted under honorable
conditions (general) discharges; and no information on the discharges of
the remaining 3 (1 percent) was available (see table 5). ^[56]24

Table 5: Number of Reported Servicemembers Discharged with Conscientious
Objector Status Granted Honorable or General Discharges by Component,
Calendar Years 2002-2006

Under honorable Discharge type Honorable conditions (general) unknown
Total

                                 Army 92 7 0 99

                             Army Reserve 16 0 0 16

                         Army National Guard 15 0 0 15

                                 Navy 23 3 0 26

                             Navy Reserve^a 0 0 0 0

                              Air Force 28 0 0 28

                           Air Force Reserve 2 0 0 2

                           Air National Guard 1 0 0 1

                             Marine Corps 12 2 0 14

                         Marine Corps Reserve 17 2 3 22

                              Coast Guard 1 0 0 1

                          Coast Guard Reserve 0 0 0 0

                               Total 207 14 3 224

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

^aThe Navy  Reserve  reported that  it  did not  receive  any  conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

Agency Comments

DOD, the Department of Homeland Security, and VA were provided a draft
of this report and had no comments on the findings. The Department of
Homeland Security and VA provided technical comments, which were
incorporated as appropriate.

^24Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding.

We will send copies of this report to interested Members of Congress, the
Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the Director
of the Department of Veterans Affairs. We will also make copies available
to others upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no
charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact me
at (202) 512-3604 or [57][email protected]. Contact points for our Offices
of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this report
are listed in appendix IV.

Brenda S. Farrell
Director, Defense Capabilities and Management

List of Congressional Committees

The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate

The Honorable Daniel Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate

The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Ranking Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives

The Honorable John P. Murtha
Chairman
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Ranking Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives

Appendix I: Demographic Information on Known Applicants for Conscientious
Objector Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006

In calendar years 2002 through 2006, 81 percent of the applicants were
enlisted males. In addition, the majority of male applicants were between
the ages of 21 and 25. The occupational area for the majority of the
applicants was general infantry (which includes weapons specialists and
special forces, among others), and most of the applicants also had between
1 to 4 years of service.

Table 6: Gender and Rank of Applicants for Conscientious Objector  Status,
Calendar Years 2002-2006

     Rank of Male applicants Female applicants Total applicant (percentage)
                           (percentage) (percentage)

                     Enlisted 332 (92%) 45 (88%) 377 (92%)

                        Officer 27 (8%) 6 (12%) 33 (8%)

                    Total 359 (100%) 51 (100%) 410 (100%)^a

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: Applications do not equal the number of applicants because two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aDMDC was unable to provide this information for 15 of the applicants
identified by the components, because it was unable to match the Social
Security numbers to records in its personnel files.

On the basis of the information shown in table 7, we determined that 83
percent of male applicants for conscientious objector status were 30 years
old or younger. Eighty-four percent of female applicants were 30 years old
or younger.

  Table 7: Age of Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status, Calendar Years
                                     2002-

Male applicants Female applicants Total Age range (percentage)(percentage)
(percentage)

                        17 to 20 30 (8%) 6 (12%) 36 (9%)

                     21 to 25 195 (54%) 23 (45%) 218 (53%)

                      26 to 30 74 (21%) 14 (27%) 88 (21%)

                        31 to 35 24 (7%) 4 (8%) 28 (7%)

                        36 to 40 19 (5%) 1 (2%) 20 (5%)

                         Over 40 17 (5%) 3 (6%) 20 (5%)

                    Total 359 (100%) 51 (100%) 410 (100%)^a

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: Applications  do not  equal  the number  of applicants  because  two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aDMDC was  unable to  provide this  information for  15 of  the  applicants
identified by the components,  because it was unable  to match the  Social
Security numbers to records in its personnel files.

Table 8 shows that 43 percent of  applicants had 1 to 2 years of  service,
and 32 percent had 3 to 4 years of service.

 Table 8: Years of Service of Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status for
                           Calendar Years, 2002-2006

Years Army Air  Air Marine  Coast Total of  Army National  Navy Air  Force
National Marine Corps Coast Guard  (percentage service Army Reserve  Guard
Navy Reserve^a Force Reserve Guard Corps Reserve Guard Reserve of total)

Less 7 6 1 0 0010301 0 than 1 (4%) year

                 1-2 87 10 14 6 023 0 22119 1 0 183 years (43%)

                 3-4 60 8 5 12 014 0 11024 1 0 135 years (32%)

                     5-6 21 6 2 4 0202350 1 46 years (11%)

                      7-8 2 2 1 3 0100200 0 11 years (3%)

More 4 1 2 5 0500420 0 than 8 (5%) years

No data 0 3 1 1 0030000 0 provided (2%)

Total 181 36 26 31 045 4 543 50 3 1

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: Applications do not equal the number of applicants because two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aThe Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

On the basis of component-provided data, we were able to determine that
during calendar years 2002 through 2006, 154 of the 202 applicants for
which these data were provided had participated in Operation Noble Eagle
(ONE), Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), or Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF)
(see table 9). ^[58]1 Of the 154 who served in these operations, 153 were
from Army or Marine Corps components.

^1ONE began on September  14, 2001; OEF  began on October  7, 2001; and  OIF
began on March 19, 2003.

Table 9: Applicants for Conscientious  Objector Status Who Served in  ONE,
OEF, or OIF, Calendar Years 2002-2006

Data not Served in ONE, Did not serve in maintained by Component OEF, or
OIF ONE, OEF, or OIF component Total

                               Army 78 0 103 181

                            Army Reserve 11 0 25 36

                         Army National Guard 11 0 15 26

                                 Navy 0 031 31

                             Navy Reserve^a 0 0 0 0

                              Air Force 0 0 45 45

                           Air Force Reserve 0 0 4 4

                           Air National Guard 0 5 0 5

                            Marine Corps 19 24 0 43

                        Marine Corps Reserve 34 16 0 50

                              Coast Guard 0 3 0 3

                          Coast Guard Reserve 1 0 0 1

                              Total 154 48 223 425

Source: GAO analysis of components' data.

Note: Applications do not equal the number of applicants because two
servicemembers applied for conscientious objector status twice.

^aThe Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious
objector applications for this time period.

Our review of component-provided data found that servicemembers who
applied for conscientious objector status worked in a variety of
occupational areas. The top five occupational areas for the 377 enlisted
servicemembers for calendar years 2002 through 2006 were

        o general infantry, which includes weapons specialists, ground
          reconnaissance specialists, special forces, and military training
          instructors, with 42 applicants;
        o  o other functional support, which includes supply accounting and
          procurement, transportation, flight operations, and related areas,
          with 16 applicants;

     o medical care and treatment, which includes surgical and therapy
       specialists, with 16 applicants;
     o security, which includes specialists who guard weapon systems, defend
       installations, and protect personnel, equipment, and facilities, with
       14 applicants; and

o combat engineering, which includes specialists in hasty and temporary
construction of airfields, roads and bridges, and in demolition, field
illumination, and chemical warfare, with 14 applicants.

Of the 33 officer applicants, the three largest occupational types
included 6 applicants whose occupations were designated as unknown (i.e.,
officer unknown occupation); 5 who were in ground and naval arms, which
includes infantry, artillery, armor and close support officers, and naval
ship commanders and other warfare-related officers; and 3 who were in the
occupational area of student officers, which includes law students,
medical students, and other trainees.

                     [59]Appendix II: Scope and Methodology

To meet our first objective--to identify trends in the number of
servicemembers applying for conscientious objector status during calendar
years 2002 through 2006--we obtained data from each of the components. We
did not report data between September 11, 2001, and December 31, 2001, as
directed in the mandate, because several of the components were unable to
provide data for this time period. The Army National Guard and the Air
Force did not provide any data to us for this period of time. Navy
officials reported receiving five applications in 2001, but they said that
they were not confident that this information was accurate. We found that
the data provided by the components could underrepresent the total number
of applications for conscientious objector status because applications
could be withdrawn during the application process before they reach the
headquarters level. However, we believe that the data are sufficiently
reliable to demonstrate overall trends in the numbers of applications that
were approved and denied during calendar years 2002 through 2006. The
Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) does not maintain separate data on the
numbers of applications for conscientious objector status; however, it
does maintain data on personnel, including demographics and reasons for
separation, dating back to the early 1970s. We therefore used DMDC data
for these purposes. To assess the reliability of all data presented in
this report, we obtained an understanding of the sources of the data and
the file structures. Specifically, we (1) performed electronic testing of
the data variables for completeness (that is, duplicative and missing
data); (2) assessed the reasonableness of the data by comparing data
provided by the components with data provided by DMDC; (3) reviewed
existing information about the systems that produced the data; and (4)
interviewed component and DMDC officials to identify known problems or
limitations in the data, as well as to understand how data are received
from each of the components and processed by DMDC. When we found
discrepancies (for example, duplicate Social Security numbers), we worked
with the appropriate components and DMDC to understand the reasons for the
discrepancies.

To meet our second objective--to determine how each component of the

U.S. Armed Forces administers its process for approving or denying
conscientious objector applications--we reviewed relevant guidance and
regulations, including DOD's instruction. ^[60]1 We interviewed officials
responsible for each component's current practices for (1) reviewing
conscientious objector applications, including the roles and availability
of key personnel (e.g., chaplains and medical personnel); (2) reassigning
servicemembers with pending applications; and (3) approving or denying
servicemembers' applications. Finally, we used component-provided data
(e.g., application start dates) to calculate the average processing time
for conscientious objector applications. ^[61]2

To meet our third objective--to determine whether conscientious objectors
are eligible to receive the same benefits that other servicemembers are
eligible to receive after they are discharged from the military--we
analyzed applicable laws and instructions from VA, DOD, and the
components. We also interviewed VA, DOD, and component officials about the
benefits available to conscientious objectors and other servicemembers
upon discharge. We reviewed component-provided data to determine the
characterization of discharge (e.g., honorable) received by the
servicemembers separated as conscientious objectors.

To obtain demographic information on applicants for conscientious objector
status, we provided DMDC with applications data provided by the
components; DMDC then matched this information to personnel data it
maintains.

In conducting this work, we contacted the appropriate officials from the
following organizations (see table 10).
The combined average number of days for all components is a
weighted-average.

^1 DOD Instruction 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors (May 5, 2007); Army
Regulation 600-43, Conscientious Objection (Aug. 21, 2006); Navy Military
Personnel Manual, Article 1900-020,Convenience of the Government
Separation Based on Conscientious Objection (Enlisted and Officers) (Aug.
22, 2002); Air Force Instruction 36-3204, Procedures for Applying as a
Conscientious Objector (July 15, 1994); Marine Corps Order 1306.16E,
Conscientious Objectors (Nov. 21, 1986); and Coast Guard Commandant
Instruction 1900.8, Conscientious Objectors and the Requirement to Bear
Arms (Nov. 30, 1990).

Table 10:  List  of  Organizations  Contacted  to  Obtain  Information  on
Conscientious Objectors

DOD

Office of the Secretary of Defense

     o Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness),
       Arlington, Virginia;
     o Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs,
       Arlington, Virginia;
     o Defense Manpower Data Center, Monterey, California; and

National Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia.

Army

        o Headquarters, Department of the Army;
        o  o Conscientious Objector Review Board;

     o U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia;
     o U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri;
     o U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort
       Bragg, North Carolina;
     o 7th Army Reserve Command, Schwetzingen, Germany;
     o 9th Regional Readiness Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; and

          o Army National Guard, Arlington, Virginia.
          o Navy

     o Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tennessee; and

          o Office of the Chief of Chaplains.
          o Air Force

     o Department of the Air Force, Headquarters;
     o Secretary of the Air Force Personnel Council, Andrews Air Force Base,
       Maryland;
     o Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph Air Force Base, Texas;
     o Air Force Reserve Command, Robins Air Force Base, Georgia;
     o Air Reserve Personnel Center, Denver, Colorado; and
     o Air National Guard, Arlington, Virginia.

Marine Corps

     o Marine Corps Headquarters, Quantico, Virginia;
     o Manpower Integration and Administration Branch, Headquarters,
       Quantico, Virginia; and
     o Office of the Command Chaplain, Quantico, Virginia.

Department of Homeland Security

United States Coast Guard, Headquarters, Washington, D.C.;

     o Advancements and Separations Branch, Enlisted Personnel Management;
       and
     o Chief of Military Personnel Policy and Standards Division.

Department of Veterans Affairs

     o VA Headquarters, Washington D.C.;
     o Veterans Benefits Administration, VA Central Office, Washington, D.C.;
     o Veterans Health Administration, Health Eligibility Center, Atlanta,
       Georgia;
     o National Systematic Technical Accuracy Review, Nashville, Tennessee;
       and
     o Veterans Benefits Administration (Regional Office), Decatur, Georgia.

Nongovernmental Organizations

o Center for Conscience and War, Washington, D.C.

Source: GAO.

We performed our work from November 2006 through August 2007 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

Appendix III: Data on Active Components' Servicemembers Separated as
Conscientious Objectors, Calendar Years 1994-2006

The Department of Defense (DOD) reported to Congress that 44 of the
197,786 servicemembers separated in fiscal year 2006 were discharged as
conscientious objectors, and 39 of the 214,353 servicemembers separated in
fiscal year 2005 were discharged for that reason. ^[62]1 As reported, the
numbers of servicemembers separated as conscientious objectors represent
about two-tenths of 1 percent of the total separations from DOD (see fig.
3).

DMDC-provided data showed that 547 servicemembers were discharged as
conscientious objectors between calendar years 1994 and 2006. The number
of conscientious objectors has decreased from 61 in 1994 (during a period
when the services were larger) to 46 and 36 during calendar years 2005 and
2006, respectively. These numbers are very small, given the size of the
total force--approximately 2.3 million servicemembers.

^1The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2005 directed the
Secretary of Defense to report to Congress--no later than March 1st of
each year 2005 through 2011-- the number of servicemembers who separated
overall in the previous fiscal year from the Army, the Air Force, the
Navy, and the Marine Corps. See Pub. L. No. 108-375, S 586 (2004). This
report also includes those servicemembers who were separated as
conscientious objectors.

Figure 3: Servicemembers Discharged as Conscientious Objectors, Calendar
Years 1994-2006 Number of servicemembers70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0

  1994 1995 1996 1997 19981999 2000 2001 2002 20032004 2005 2006 Year

Army Navy Marine CorpsAir Force Coast Guard

Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

  GAO Contact

[63]Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or [email protected].

Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact above, Cynthia Jackson, Assistant Director;
Minty M. Abraham; Kurt A. Burgeson; Fatema Z. Choudhury; Kenya R. Jones;
Mitchell B. Karpman; Ronald La Due Lake; Joanne Landesman; Julia Matta;
Lonnie J. McAllister II; Anna Maria Ortiz; Kimberly L. Perteet;
Maria-Alaina I. Rambus; Beverly C. Schladt; Derek B. Stewart; and Jennifer
M. Thomas made key contributions to this report.

(350941)

  GAO's Mission

The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( [64]www.gao.gov) . Each weekday, GAO posts GAO
Reports and newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its
Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
[65]www.gao.gov and select "E-mail Updates."

                             Order by Mail or Phone

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
DC 20548

To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000
TDD: (202) 512-2537
Fax: (202) 512-6061

  To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs 
  
Contact:

Web site: [66]www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: [67][email protected]
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

  Congressional Relations

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [68][email protected], (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Relations
Washington, DC 20548

  Public Affairs

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, [69][email protected], (202) 512-4800
U.S.  Government  Accountability  Office,  441  G  Street  NW,  Room  7149
Washington, DC 20548

References

Visible links

  57. mailto:[email protected]
  63. mailto:[email protected]
  64. http://www.gao.gov/
  65. http://www.gao.gov/
  66. http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
  67. mailto:[email protected]
  68. mailto:[email protected]
  69. mailto:[email protected]
*** End of document. ***