After the Draft : Objectors: Volunteers Still Opt Out

As U.S. forces parachuted onto the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada on Oct. 25, 1983, Ensign Jerome Kohn was far from the action. On that day of combat and controversy, he was in tranquil San Diego, preparing to graduate from the Navy’s Surface Warfare Officers School.

Word of the Grenada invasion spread quickly among his classmates, Kohn recalled. There were handshakes and backslaps as the young officers reveled in the might of America’s all-volunteer military.

But what was a proud moment for his fellow officers was, for Kohn, the last straw.

‘Had to Get Out’

“The way everybody was jumping around and yelling how we beat up a few Cubans, I wanted to rip off my shoulder boards in shame,” Kohn, 23, said. “That’s when it truly occurred to me that what I was doing was wrong. That’s when I knew I had to get out of the Navy.”

He eventually did--as a conscientious objector.

In the 12 years since the draft ended, more than 5,800 peacetime volunteers have been allowed to prematurely terminate their enlistment contracts and leave the military after declaring themselves morally, religiously or ethically opposed to war. About 15% have been junior officers like Kohn. Most have received honorable or general discharges, but usually not without considerable effort and anguish.

The number of conscientious objector discharges has declined steadily since the Vietnam War--they peaked in 1971, when 1,984 of 4,381 applications were granted--and has leveled off in recent years. Since 1980, an average of about 250 conscientious objectors have been discharged annually--enough paper work to keep special discharge review boards busy in each branch of the armed services.

Linked to Foreign Policy

Like their draftee counterparts of the Vietnam era, a sizable number of today’s conscientious objectors--commonly called “COs”-- seek discharge from the military based upon what they consider objectionable U.S. foreign policy decisions. Accordingly, civilian counselors say, the number of applications they helped file rose slightly when American forces were sent to Grenada and Lebanon.

Many volunteers who become conscientious objectors today are wooed into the military by promises of technical training, and they never fully realize until well after induction that they may be called on to fight, according to counselors.

“One complaint I hear all the time from COs is that recruiters today describe the military in such non-military ways, that some people don’t think about military issues when they sign up,” said attorney Jon Landau. He is a former Army officer-turned-conscientious objector who works in San Francisco for the Central Committee For Conscientious Objectors.

“You look at the military’s advertisements on television during football games and all you see are kids talking to their dads about computers and funds for college,” Landau said. “You don’t hear anybody talking about killing people.”

During the Vietnam War, the home front abounded with civilian organizations ready to assist draftees in filing for conscientious objector status. Although most of those agencies dissolved as U.S. military involvement in Southeast Asia subsided, there is still a small network of determined advisers anxious to help service personnel pursue conscientious objector discharges.

The effort is led by the Central Committee For Conscientious Objectors, a 37-year-old Philadelphia-based pacifist organization that maintains an office in San Francisco and has trained about 200 counselors nationwide. The committee works with the American Friends Service Committee; the Washington-based National Interreligious Service Board for Conscientious Objectors, a clergy organization, and the 200-member Military Law Task Force of the National Lawyers’ Guild.

“Since the end of Vietnam, there have been a lot of people in the military who wanted out for reasons of conscience but wound up staying in because they didn’t know that there was still anybody around who could help them,” Landau said. “As a movement, I guess you could say we’ve been pretty low-key, but I think at the same time that we’ve been effective. There are still people who hear about us and who we help every day file for their discharges.”

The approval rate for conscientious objector discharge applications has reached an all-time high--more than 80% of last year’s requests were granted, Pentagon statistics show.

Pool of Volunteers

One reason may be the availability of recruits. Military officials said the few gaps left in their ranks by departing conscientious objectors are easily filled today by a vast pool of young volunteers eager to serve in the military.

The availability of surplus manpower has not, however, stopped commanders from closely scrutinizing each application and rejecting the one out of five that is deemed insincere.

“There are some people who discover that the military just isn’t for them and they’ll do anything to get out of their enlistment commitments, including saying that they have new-found beliefs,” said Capt. Jay Farrar, a Marine Corps spokesman. “If they are sincere in their beliefs and say, ‘Hey, I made a mistake by coming here,’ then it’s up to the process to find out just how deep their feelings are. We don’t try to change anybody’s mind or dissuade them, though.”

Nor do the armed services attempt to camouflage their ultimate mission--combat--when advertising or recruiting, military spokesmen contended.

“But how far do you go in presenting an accurate image of what the military is about?” asked Lt. Cmdr. Ron Morse of the Navy’s Pacific fleet. “Do you have a recruiting commercial on TV that says: ‘Caution, the secretary of defense warns that you may be involved in combat?’ ”

Series of Interviews

After a member of the service files initial paper work requesting discharge as a conscientious objector, the process requires that the applicant be interviewed by his commanding officer and then by a chaplain. Sessions with a psychiatrist and an investigating officer follow.

During the review process, conscientious objector applicants are routinely offerred transfers to noncombat duty, but those offers are rarely accepted.

“A noncombatant position doesn’t make much sense because you’re still serving a military purpose, still helping the war machine,” Kohn said. “Without the people behind the desks, you wouldn’t have the people behind the guns.”

Early in the application process, a conscientious objector is required by law to sign a statement acknowledging that if he refuses to wear his uniform or perform his assigned duties while his case is being reviewed, he will forfeit his veterans benefits.

Those who continue to serve before winning honorable or general discharges are treated by the Veterans Administration the same as any other former servicemen similarly discharged: They can apply for and receive VA loans and medical care. (A less desirable general discharge is issued if a member of the service has a record of non-judicial punishment for violating military regulations).

Ultimately, each conscientious objector’s case is reviewed by ranking commanders at the Pentagon. The process takes an average of three to six months to complete.

Tougher for Some

Although military officials say their treatment of COs has become progressively more liberal, those who apply for such discharges complain nonetheless that they are sometimes harassed and occasionally punished by their commanders and peers. The application process, according to counselors, may be made more difficult for military doctors and other highly trained professionals not easily replaced.

Three months before he filed his request for discharge as a conscientious objector, Capt. David J. Fletcher, an Army doctor stationed at Ft. Lewis, Wash., was given a 99% rating on his annual performance review. “He has represented the U.S. Army Medical Department extremely well,” his colonel wrote. “His potential is unlimited. . . .”

So pleased were his commanders that they appointed Fletcher health minister for U.S. occupation forces on Grenada and sent him to Ft. Bragg, N.C., to prepare for the mission.

When he arrived at Ft. Bragg, Fletcher said, he was told that he was to carry a .45-caliber pistol and would receive training in counterterrorism. He said he was “shocked and dismayed” at the prospect of fighting and after seeing the wounded and dead U.S. soldiers who had been returned from the embattled island.

Fletcher’s orders to Grenada were never finalized; the job of health minister was given to another officer. Fletcher said he was so troubled by his experiences at Ft. Bragg that he applied for a conscientious objector discharge in January, 1984.

‘Raises Questions’

Fletcher was given another annual performance review the next October. This time, his colonel gave him a “0”--the Army’s lowest possible performance rating.

“This officer has filed for conscientious objector status. . . ,” his colonel wrote. “This event has limited his usefulness in the past and raises questions as to his future potential in the Army Medical Department.”

Ordinarily, the Army might encourage an officer with so poor a performance evaluation to leave voluntarily. In Fletcher’s case, the Army determined that he was insincere in his claims of pacifism. His request for discharge was denied.

Undaunted, Fletcher has become active in the Quaker Church and has encouraged other Army doctors to become conscientious objectors. He continues to work at Ft. Lewis’ Madigan Army Medical Center while appealing the Army’s decision through the federal courts.

“I’m being held (in the service) against my will and being punished for simply holding a particular belief which they don’t agree with,” he said.

Other peacetime conscientious objector applicants have been treated similarly, said Kathy Gilberd, a San Diego paralegal who has worked with more than 100 conscientious objector applicants since 1973.

Unpleasant Assignments

“They are sometimes given unpleasant assignments while their application is being processed,” Gilberd said. “The guys who worked hard to earn nuclear or other special clearances often wind up spending their time chipping paint, mopping floors or being forced to sit and do absolutely nothing.”

That’s what happened to an Air Force B-52 instructor pilot who was placed under house arrest in 1982 at a South Dakota bomber base after he suddenly refused to fly for religious reasons. The pilot, Capt. Craig Chestler, told his commanders that he had become a Jehovah’s Witness.

It took five months for Air Force officials to drop charges against Chestler and honorably discharge him. During that time, he was restricted to his quarters on base, except to eat and exercise.

Kohn also was confined to quarters after he declared himself a conscientious objector.

Kohn accepted a scholarship from the Navy’s Reserve Officer Training Corps while a student at Northwestern University. He did so, he said, because “I don’t come from a particularly wealthy family. I was swayed by pragmatic concerns--I didn’t have any money to go to school. I never thought about the broad implications of what I was doing.”

Repayment Offered

In February, 1984, Kohn filed a conscientious objector request and offered to reimburse the government for the college scholarship he had received. The Navy declined Kohn’s offer and instead disciplined him when he refused to report for duty as gunnery officer aboard the amphibious assault ship, Dubuque. Kohn was placed under arrest on charges of refusing orders, of failing to go to his appointed place of duty and of conduct unbecoming an officer and a gentleman.

As a result of the charges, the Navy refused to complete processing of his discharge request.

Kohn was court-martialed in November and dismissed from the service--a verdict tantamount to a felony conviction, according to his Navy attorney, Lt. Thomas Palmer. Kohn has appealed the decision.

“His sincerity was never questioned, but that was what prevented him from following the orders he had been given,” Palmer said.

Kohn regarded his sentence as harsh. But historically, particularly in wartime, he could have expected much worse from America’s military.

During the Revolutionary War, pacifists who refused to fight often had their property seized. During the Civil War, conscripted conscientious objectors were frequently hung by their thumbs, bayoneted or imprisoned.

Noncombatant Work

Imprisonment for pacifists continued as the military’s policy during World War I, although by then the military had agreed to exempt from the Selective Service Act conscientious objectors belonging to recognized pacifist religious sects, among them the Mennonites and Quakers. Those exempt from the draft, however, were still expected to perform noncombatant work and were sent to Army camps.

Those who refused to perform any military duties were court-martialed. Records show that 504 conscientious objectors were convicted during World War I, primarily for failing to obey orders. Seventeen soldiers were sentenced to death, although none was executed. Of the others, 142 were given life sentences that were later reduced.

Harsh prison terms continued during World War II for conscientious objectors who would not perform even noncombatant military duties.

It was not until 1962 that the U.S. Defense Department officially allowed for the transfer of men opposed to combat and the discharge of those opposed to all military duty. It also marked the first time in U.S. history that a conscientious objector--if he opposed war on religious grounds could apply for and receive an honorable discharge.

Eight years later, in a case involving a draftee bound for Vietnam, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person need not be religiously opposed to war to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector. The high court held that a sincere and strong moral belief against all war could be considered religious for purposes of the law.

Since then, hundreds of non-religious soldiers, sailors and airmen who enlisted in peacetime have sought discharge from the service claiming moral or ethical opposition to war.

“I was raised a Catholic, but religion had nothing to do with my decision to leave the Navy,” Kohn said. “I made a mistake in joining. I never intended to use a gun.”