This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-1196 
entitled 'Military Personnel: Number of Formally Reported Applications 
for Conscientious Objectors Is Small Relative to the Total Size of the 
Armed Forces' which was released on October 1, 2007. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

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. 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. 

Report to Congressional Committees: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

September 2007: 

Military Personnel: 

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

Military Personnel: 

GAO-07-1196: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-07-1196, a report to congressional committees. 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

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. 

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. 

Table: Number of Conscientious Objector Applications Reported, Calendar 
Years 2002-2003: 

Component: Army; 
2002: 25; 
2003: 47; 
2004: 53; 
2005: 33; 
2006: 23; 
Total: 181. 

Component: Army Reserve; 
2002: 2; 
2003: 8; 
2004: 14; 
2005: 9; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 36. 

Component: Army National Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 7; 
2004: 11; 
2005: 7; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 26. 

Component: Navy; 
2002: 8; 
2003: 2; 
2004: 3; 
2005: 9; 
2006: 9; 
Total: 31. 

Component: Navy Reserve[A]; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Component: Air Force; 
2002: 2; 
2003: 15; 
2004: 10; 
2005: 12; 
2006: 6; 
Total: 45. 

Component: Air Force Reserve; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 2; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 4. 

Component: Air National Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 1; 
2006: 2; 
Total: 5. 

Component: Marine Corps; 
2002: 8; 
2003: 8; 
2004: 11; 
2005: 6; 
2006: 10; 
Total: 43. 

Component: Marine Corps Reserve; 2002: 7; 
2003: 21; 
2004: 14; 
2005: 5; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 50. 

Component: Coast Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Component: Coast Guard Reserve; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Total; 
2002: 56; 
2003: 113; 
2004: 118; 
2005: 82; 
2006: 56; 
Total: 425. 

Sources: GAO analysis of components' data. 

[A] The Navy Reserve reported no applications during this period. 

[End of table] 

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. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.  The Departments 
of Defense, Homeland Security, and Veterans Affairs were provided a 
draft of this report and had no comments. 

To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on GAO-07-1196.
For more information, contact Brenda Farrell at (202) 512-3604 or 
farrellb@gao.gov

[End of section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

The Number of Applications for Conscientious Objection Was Small: 

Conscientious Objector Application Process Is Consistent Across 
Components: 

Conscientious Objectors May Receive the Same Benefits as Other 
Discharged Servicemembers: 

Agency Comments: 

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

Appendix II: Scope and Methodology: 

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

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Tables: 

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 Process Reported Applications for 
Conscientious Objector Status, Calendar Years 2002-2006: 

Table 4: Benefits Available to Veterans: 

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

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

Table 7: Age of Applicants for Conscientious Objector Status, Calendar 
Years 2002-2006: 

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

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

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

Figures: 

Figure 1: VA's Organizational Hierarchy: 

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

Figure 3: Servicemembers Discharged as Conscientious Objectors, 
Calendar Years 1994-2006: 

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: 

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[Footnote 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'[Footnote 2] conscientious objector policies[Footnote 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. 

The John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 
2007[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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 appendix II. 

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

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. 

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

* The servicemember submits an application for conscientious objector 
status. 

* The commanding officer or authorized official assigns a military 
chaplain and a psychiatrist to conduct required interviews. 

* The applicant's commanding officer appoints an investigating officer. 

* The investigating officer holds an informal hearing. 

* The investigating officer prepares a report, including a 
recommendation to approve or deny the application. 

* The commanding officer reviews the record and makes a recommendation 
to approve or deny the application. 

* An authorized official or board makes the final decision and informs 
the commanding officer. 

* 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. 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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.[Footnote 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. 

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: 

* The Veterans Health Administration manages and operates VA's medical 
care system and administers health care benefits. 

* 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. 

* 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.[Footnote 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.) 

Figure 1: VA's Organizational Hierarchy: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Department of Veterans Affairs data. 

[End of figure] 

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.[Footnote 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).[Footnote 
12] 

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

Army; 
2002: 25; 
2003: 47; 
2004: 53; 
2005: 33; 
2006: 23; 
Total: 181. 

Army Reserve; 
2002: 2; 
2003: 8; 
2004: 14; 
2005: 9; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 36. 

Army National Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 7; 
2004: 11; 
2005: 7; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 26. 

Navy; 
2002: 8; 
2003: 2; 
2004: 3; 
2005: 9; 
2006: 9; 
Total: 31. 

Navy Reserve[A]; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 0; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Air Force; 
2002: 2; 
2003: 15; 
2004: 10; 
2005: 12; 
2006: 6; 
Total: 45. 

Air Force Reserve; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 2; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 4. 

Air National Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 1; 
2006: 2; 
Total: 5. 

Marine Corps; 
2002: 8; 
2003: 8; 
2004: 11; 
2005: 6; 
2006: 10; 
Total: 43. 

Marine Corps Reserve; 
2002: 7; 
2003: 21; 
2004: 14; 
2005: 5; 
2006: 3; 
Total: 50. 

Coast Guard; 
2002: 1; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 1; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Coast Guard Reserve; 
2002: 0; 
2003: 1; 
2004: 0; 
2005: 0; 
2006: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Total; 
2002: 56; 
2003: 113; 
2004: 118; 
2005: 82; 
2006: 56; 
Total: 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. 

[A] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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. 

Table 2: Number of Reported Applications That Were Approved and Denied, 
Calendar Years 2002-2006: 

Army; 
Approved 1-O: 94; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 5; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 99; 
Denied 1-O: 70; 
Denied 1-A-O: 10; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 80; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 2; 
Total: 181. 

Army Reserve; 
Approved 1-O: 14; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 2; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 16; 
Denied 1-O: 13; 
Denied 1-A-O: 2; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 15; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 5; 
Total: 36. 

Army National Guard; 
Approved 1-O: 13; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 2; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 15; 
Denied 1-O: 11; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 11; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 26. 

Navy; 
Approved 1-O: 18; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 7; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 1; 
Applications approved: 26; 
Denied 1-O: 4; 
Denied 1- A-O: 1; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 5; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 31. 

Navy Reserve[D]; 
Approved 1-O: 0; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 0; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 0; 
Denied 1-O: 0; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 0; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Air Force; 
Approved 1-O: 27; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 1; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 28; 
Denied 1-O: 17; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 17; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 45. 

Air Force Reserve; 
Approved 1-O: 0; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 0; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 2; 
Applications approved: 2; 
Denied 1-O: 0; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 1; 
Applications denied: 1; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 1; 
Total: 4. 

Air National Guard; 
Approved 1-O: 1; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 0; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 1; 
Denied 1- O: 3; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 3; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 1; 
Total: 5. 

Marine Corps; 
Approved 1-O: 12; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 2; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 14; 
Denied 1-O: 18; 
Denied 1-A-O: 7; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 25; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 4; 
Total: 43. 

Marine Corps Reserve; 
Approved 1-O: 20; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 2; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 22; 
Denied 1-O: 25; 
Denied 1-A-O: 3; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 28; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 50. 

Coast Guard; 
Approved 1-O: 1; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 0; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 1; 
Denied 1-O: 1; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 1; 
Applications denied: 2; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Coast Guard Reserve; 
Approved 1-O: 0; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 0; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications approved: 0; 
Denied 1- O: 1; 
Denied 1-A-O: 0; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 0; 
Applications denied: 1; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Total; 
Approved 1-O: 200; 
Approved 1-A-O[A]: 21; 
Approved, but application type unknown[B]: 3; 
Applications approved: 224; 
Denied 1-O: 163; 
Denied 1-A-O: 23; 
Denied, but application type unknown[B]: 2; 
Applications denied: 188; 
Applications with missing data[C]: 13; 
Total: 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. 

[A] Of 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. 

[B] The component did not identify the application type (1-O or 1-A-O). 

[C] In 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. 

[D] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 
13] Figure 2 illustrates the eight steps in the process. 

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

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of Armed Forces information. 

[End of figure] 

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: 

Component: Army; 
Average number of days per component: 194. 

Component: Army National Guard; 
Average number of days per component: 251. 

Component: Army Reserve; 
Average number of days per component: 230. 

Component: Navy; 
Average number of days per component: 160. 

Component: Navy Reserve; 
Average number of days per component: [A]. 

Component: Air Force; 
Average number of days per component: 235. 

Component: Air Force Reserve; 
Average number of days per component: 357. 

Component: Air National Guard; 
Average number of days per component: 264. 

Component: Marine Corps; 
Average number of days per component: 231. 

Component: Marine Corps Reserve; 
Average number of days per component: 298. 

Component: Coast Guard; 
Average number of days per component: 180. 

Component: Coast Guard Reserve; 
Average number of days per component: 310. 

Component: Average number of days for all components; 
Average number of days per component: 221. 

Source: GAO analysis of components' data. 

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

[A] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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,[Footnote 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,[Footnote 15] conscientious objector status generally is not 
considered when determining eligibility for any of the benefits VA 
offers;[Footnote 16] the primary determinant for these benefits is the 
characterization of discharge.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

Table 4: Benefits Available to Veterans: 

VA benefit: Health care; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge; 
- Honorable; 
- 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: 
* 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; 
- All other veterans must have 24 months of continuous active duty 
military service or meet the exception described below; 
- 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. 

VA benefit: Disability compensation; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge; 
- Honorable; 
- Under honorable conditions (general); 
* The veteran must have been disabled by an injury or disease incurred 
or aggravated during active military service. 

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

VA benefit: Montgomery GI Bill-Active Duty education and training; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge; 
- Honorable; 
Veterans may be eligible if: 
* 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: 
- 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; 
-service connected disability;[B]; 
- hardship; 
- a medical condition diagnosed prior to joining the military; 
- a condition that interfered with performance of duty and did not 
result from misconduct; and: 
- a reduction in force. 

VA benefit: Vocational rehabilitation and employment; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge; 
- Honorable; 
- Under honorable conditions (general); 
* The veteran must have a service- connected disability that is rated 
at least 20 percent with an employment handicap;[B] or: 
* A service-connected disability that is rated at least 10 percent with 
a serious employment handicap. 

VA benefit: Home loan guaranty; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge; 
- Honorable; 
- Under honorable conditions (general); 
* 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: Life insurance; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* 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: 
- released from active duty under other than dishonorable conditions on 
or after April 25, 1951; 
- rated for a service-connected disability; and: 
- in good health except for any service-connected conditions; 
* The veterans must apply within 2 years of the date that VA grants 
their new service- connected disability rating. 

VA benefit: Burial; 
Basic eligibility requirements: 
* Characterization of discharge from active duty[C]; 
- Honorable; 
- Under honorable conditions (general); or: 
* Servicemembers who die while on active duty. 

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

[A] Veterans 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. 

[B] A 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. 

[C] Active-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). 

[End of table] 

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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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. 

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).[Footnote 24] 

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

Army; 
Honorable: 92; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 7; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 99. 

Army Reserve; 
Honorable: 16; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 16. 

Army National Guard; 
Honorable: 15; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 15. 

Navy; 
Honorable: 23; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 3; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 26. 

Navy Reserve[A]; 
Honorable: 0; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Air Force; 
Honorable: 28; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 28. 

Air Force Reserve; 
Honorable: 2; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 2. 

Air National Guard; 
Honorable: 1; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Marine Corps; 
Honorable: 12; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 2; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 14. 

Marine Corps Reserve; 
Honorable: 17; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 2; 
Discharge type unknown: 3; 
Total: 22. 

Coast Guard; 
Honorable: 1; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Coast Guard Reserve; 
Honorable: 0; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 0; 
Discharge type unknown: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Total; 
Honorable: 207; 
Under honorable conditions (general): 14; 
Discharge type unknown: 3; 
Total: 224. 

Source: GAO analysis of components' data. 

[A] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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. 

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 [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions on this report, please contact 
me at (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. 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. 

Signed by: 

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: 

[End of section] 

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 applicant: Enlisted; 
Male applicants (percentage): 332 (92%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 45 (88%); 
Total (percentage): 377 (92%). 

Rank of applicant: Officer; 
Male applicants (percentage): 27 (8%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 6 (12%); 
Total (percentage): 33 (8%). 

Rank of applicant: Total; 
Male applicants (percentage): 359 (100%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 51 (100%); 
Total (percentage): 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. 

[A] DMDC 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. 

[End of table] 

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 2002-2006: 

Age range: 17 to 20; 
Male applicants (percentage): 30 (8%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 6 (12%); 
Total (percentage): 36 (9%). 

Age range: 21 to 25; 
Male applicants (percentage): 195 (54%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 23 (45%); 
Total (percentage): 218 (53%). 

Age range: 26 to 30; 
Male applicants (percentage): 74 (21%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 14 (27%); 
Total (percentage): 88 (21%). 

Age range: 31 to 35; 
Male applicants (percentage): 24 (7%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 4 (8%); 
Total (percentage): 28 (7%). 

Age range: 36 to 40; 
Male applicants (percentage): 19 (5%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 1 (2%); 
Total (percentage): 20 (5%). 

Age range: Over 40; 
Male applicants (percentage): 17 (5%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 3 (6%); 
Total (percentage): 20 (5%). 

Age range: Total; 
Male applicants (percentage): 359 (100%); 
Female applicants (percentage): 51 (100%); 
Total (percentage): 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. 

[A] DMDC 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. 

[End of table] 

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 of service: Less than 1 year; 
Army: 7; 
Army Reserve: 6; 
Army National Guard: 1; 
Navy: 0; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 0; 
Air Force Reserve: 1; 
Air National Guard: 0; 
Marine Corps: 3; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 0; 
Coast Guard: 1; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 19 (4%). 

Years of service: 1-2 years; 
Army: 87; 
Army Reserve: 10; 
Army National Guard: 14; 
Navy: 6; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 23; 
Air Force Reserve: 0; 
Air National Guard: 2; 
Marine Corps: 21; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 19; 
Coast Guard: 1; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 183 (43%). 

Years of service: 3-4 years; 
Army: 60; 
Army Reserve: 8; 
Army National Guard: 5; 
Navy: 12; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 14; 
Air Force Reserve: 0; 
Air National Guard: 1; 
Marine Corps: 10; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 24; 
Coast Guard: 1; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 135 (32%). 

Years of service: 5-6 years; 
Army: 21; 
Army Reserve: 6; 
Army National Guard: 2; 
Navy: 4; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 2; 
Air Force Reserve: 0; 
Air National Guard: 2; 
Marine Corps: 3; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 5; 
Coast Guard: 0; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 1; 
Total (percentage of total): 46 (11%). 

Years of service: 7-8 years; 
Army: 2; 
Army Reserve: 2; 
Army National Guard: 1; 
Navy: 3; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 1; 
Air Force Reserve: 0; 
Air National Guard: 0; 
Marine Corps: 2; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 0; 
Coast Guard: 0; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 11 (3%). 

Years of service: More than 8 years; 
Army: 4; 
Army Reserve: 1; 
Army National Guard: 2; 
Navy: 5; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 5; 
Air Force Reserve: 0; 
Air National Guard: 0; 
Marine Corps: 4; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 2; 
Coast Guard: 0; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 23 (5%). 

Years of service: No data provided; 
Army: 0; 
Army Reserve: 3; 
Army National Guard: 1; 
Navy: 1; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 0; 
Air Force Reserve: 3; 
Air National Guard: 0; 
Marine Corps: 0; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 0; 
Coast Guard: 0; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 0; 
Total (percentage of total): 8 (2%). 

Years of service: Total; 
Army: 181; 
Army Reserve: 36; 
Army National Guard: 26; 
Navy: 31; 
Navy Reserve[A]: 0; 
Air Force: 45; 
Air Force Reserve: 4; 
Air National Guard: 5; 
Marine Corps: 43; 
Marine Corps Reserve: 50; 
Coast Guard: 3; 
Coast Guard Reserve: 1; 
Total (percentage of total): 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. 

[A] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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).[Footnote 25] Of the 154 who served in 
these operations, 153 were from Army or Marine Corps components. 

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

Component: Army; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 78; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 103; 
Total: 181. 

Component: Army Reserve; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 11; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 25; 
Total: 36. 

Component: Army National Guard; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 11; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 15; 
Total: 26. 

Component: Navy; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 31; 
Total: 31. 

Component: Navy Reserve[A]; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 0. 

Component: Air Force; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 45; 
Total: 45. 

Component: Air Force Reserve; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 4; 
Total: 4. 

Component: Air National Guard; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 5; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 5. 

Component: Marine Corps; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 19; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 24; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 43. 

Component: Marine Corps Reserve; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 34; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 16; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 50. 

Component: Coast Guard; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 3; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 3. 

Component: Coast Guard Reserve; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 1; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 0; 
Data not maintained by component: 0; 
Total: 1. 

Component: Total; 
Served in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 154; 
Did not serve in ONE, OEF, or OIF: 48; 
Data not maintained by component: 223; 
Total: 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. 

[A] The Navy Reserve reported that it did not receive any conscientious 
objector applications for this time period. 

[End of table] 

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: 

* general infantry, which includes weapons specialists, ground 
reconnaissance specialists, special forces, and military training 
instructors, with 42 applicants; 

* other functional support, which includes supply accounting and 
procurement, transportation, flight operations, and related areas, with 
16 applicants; 

* medical care and treatment, which includes surgical and therapy 
specialists, with 16 applicants; 

* security, which includes specialists who guard weapon systems, defend 
installations, and protect personnel, equipment, and facilities, with 
14 applicants; and: 

* 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. 

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 26] 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.[Footnote 27] 

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). 

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

DOD; 
Office of the Secretary of Defense: 
* Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Personnel and Readiness), 
Arlington, Virginia; 
* Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, 
Arlington, Virginia; 
* Defense Manpower Data Center, Monterey, California; and; National 
Guard Bureau, Arlington, Virginia. 

Army; 
* Headquarters, Department of the Army; 
- Conscientious Objector Review Board; 
* U.S. Army Reserve Command, Fort McPherson, Georgia; 
* U.S. Army Human Resources Command, St. Louis, Missouri; 
* U.S. Army Civil Affairs and Psychological Operations Command, Fort 
Bragg, North Carolina; 
* 7th Army Reserve Command, Schwetzingen, Germany; 
* 9th Regional Readiness Command, Fort Shafter, Hawaii; and: 
* Army National Guard, Arlington, Virginia. 

Navy; 
* Navy Personnel Command, Millington, Tennessee; and: 
* Office of the Chief of Chaplains. 

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

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

Department of Homeland Security; 
United States Coast Guard, Headquarters, Washington, D.C: 
* Advancements and Separations Branch, Enlisted Personnel Management; 
and; 
* Chief of Military Personnel Policy and Standards Division. 

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

Nongovernmental Organizations; 
* Center for Conscience and War, Washington, D.C. 

Source: GAO. 

[End of table] 

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

[End of section] 

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.[Footnote 28] 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. 

Figure 3: Servicemembers Discharged as Conscientious Objectors, 
Calendar Years 1994-2006: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of DMDC data. 

[End of figure] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Brenda S. Farrell, (202) 512-3604 or farrellb@gao.gov. 

Acknowledgments: 

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. 

[End of section] 

Footnotes:  

[1] The term reserve or reserve components includes the Reserve and 
National Guard components. 

[2] For 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. §3. 

[3] Department 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 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 
the Department of Defense's instruction; however, its regulation 
closely follows the Department of Defense instruction. 

[4] Pub. L. No. 109-364, §587 (2006). 

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

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

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

[8] Unlike 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. 

[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). 

[10] 38 U.S.C. § 7101. 

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

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

[13] 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). 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. 

[14] 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). 

[15] VA General Counsel Decision Assessment, 1993. 

[16] In accordance with 38 U.S.C. § 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. 

[17] There 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. 

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

[19] If 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. 

[20] 38 U.S.C. § 5303. 

[21] 38 U.S.C. § 5303. 

[22] The 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. 

[23] If 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. 

[24] Percentages do not add to 100 because of rounding. 

[26] ONE began on September 14, 2001; OEF began on October 7, 2001; and 
OIF began on March 19, 2003. 

[27] 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). 

[28] The combined average number of days for all components is a 
weighted-average. 

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 [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Each 
weekday, GAO posts 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 [hyperlink, http://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: [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm]: 
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov: 
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Congressional Relations: 

Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4400: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7125: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Public Affairs: 

Susan Becker, Acting Manager, BeckerS@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, DC 20548: