MEDIC SUES ARMY FOR DISCHARGE AS CONSCIENTIOUS OBJECTOR
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE - April 30, 2015
CONTACT: Peter Goldberger, (610) 649-8200, [email protected]
WASHINGTON – A U.S. Army medic
stationed in Korea
has asked a federal court
in Washington D.C. to order the Army to discharge him as a conscientious objector. The Army refused
to release Robert
Aaron Weilbacher from his enlistment, according to the lawsuit, even though his claim was upheld by the Army Conscientious Objector
Review Board, whose decision
was final under the Army’s
own regulations. Weilbacher is represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation’s Capital.
After a lengthy investigation and a hearing,
the Army’s Review
Board determined that clear and convincing evidence
established that Weilbacher’s sincere and deeply held
moral and ethical beliefs do not permit
him to continue to serve in the military. Army regulations entitle sincere conscientious objectors to an honorable discharge
if their beliefs have changed since they enlisted.
ACLU-DC Legal Director Arthur Spitzer said: “this case is about the importance of protecting the rights
of military conscientious objectors and about
the importance of government agencies – including the military – following their own rules and regulations. In Mr. Weilbacher’s case,
the Army didn’t
follow its own rules and regulations, and failed to honor his deeply held moral and ethical objection to participation in war.”
Weilbacher enlisted
in the Army in 2013. At that time, he believed in war as a method
of national defense. He chose to be trained
for combat service, as a medic.
The transformation of Weilbacher’s beliefs came in 2014, after he spoke with combat- deployed medics about their
experiences, including having
to shoot their
weapons at the enemy and seeing children
blown up as “collateral damage.”
He then understood, for the first time, the reality
of collateral death and destruction caused by war. His previous military training and experience had stressed only the positive
and glorified aspects
of military service.
These conversations led Weilbacher to an intense
period of reading,
study, reflection and meditation. He came to a profound change
in his beliefs: “to live a life focused around
my moral and ethical code, I cannot participate in this degradation of human life that
happens in the military
with war.” In February 2014, he submitted an application for discharge from the Army as a Conscientious Objector,
explaining that he had realized that military service is inseparable from supporting war and the killing of people.”
ACLU cooperating attorney Deborah Karpatkin, of New York City, explained
that federal law and Army regulations require
discharge from military
service of individuals who, after their service
begins, show that they have become conscientiously opposed to war in any form. The objector’s opposition must be founded on “religious training
and belief,” which includes
moral and ethical
convictions, and the applicant’s changed position must be sincere
and deeply held.
“The Army imposes
tough standards on applicants for Conscientious Objector
discharge, and the Army found that Robert Weilbacher met those tough
standards. He has shown
that he is a deeply
sincere conscientious objector
because of his moral and ethical convictions,” Karpatkin said. “He meets all the legal requirements and is entitled
to immediate honorable
discharge from military
service.”
Army regulation AR 600-43
Par. 2-8, states that the Review Board’s
decision is final. Yet in February 2015, a Deputy Assistant Secretary
of the Army countermanded the Review Board’s
decision.
ACLU cooperating Attorney Peter Goldberger, of Ardmore, Pennsylvania, explained that even if the Deputy Assistant
Secretary had the authority to act on Weilbacher’s
application, she had no legally
sufficient reason to deny his application: “the record of the Investigating Officer, the witnesses, and the chaplain
provide clear and convincing
evidence of the depth and sincerity of Weilbacher’s conscientious objector beliefs.”
Weilbacher’s legal
action claims that the Deputy
Assistant Secretary’s action
was unlawful and contrary
to Army Regulations, and that the Review Board’s final decision
granting him an honorable discharge as a conscientious objector should be implemented
immediately.
In
addition to the ACLU, Weilbacher has been supported by the Center on Conscience
& War and by Courage to Resist.
##
Stay Informed
Sign up to be the first to hear about how to take action.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.
By completing this form, I agree to receive occasional emails per the terms of the ACLU’s privacy statement.