1–5. Policy
a. Personnel who qualify as conscientious objectors under this regulation will be classified as such, consistent with
the effectiveness and efficiency of the Army. However, requests by personnel for qualification as a conscientious
objector after entering military service will not be favorably considered when these requests are—
(1) Based on a claim of conscientious objection that existed and satisfied the requirements for classification as a
conscientious objector according to section 6(j) of the Military Selective Service Act, as amended (50 USC, App
456(j)), and other provisions of law when such a claim was not presented before dispatch of the notice of induction,
enlistment, or appointment. Claims based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences before entering
military service, however, which did not become fixed until after the person’s entry into the service, will be considered.
(2) Based solely on conscientious objection claimed and denied on their merits by the Selective Service System
before induction when application under this regulation is based on substantially the same grounds, or supported by
substantially the same evidence, as the request that was denied under the Selective Service System. Refusal to reopen a
person’s classification, under the Selective Service System, after his or her entry into service does not have any
significance on the merits of a registrant’s claim. If views are expressed under the Selective Service System concerning
the merits of the claim of a registrant whose beliefs have crystallized after dispatch of his or her induction notice, in
connection with a refusal to reopen his or her classification, such expressions must be given no consideration.
(3) Based solely upon policy, pragmatism, or expediency. Applicants who are otherwise eligible for conscientious
objector status may not be denied that status simply because of their views on the nation’s domestic or foreign policies.
(4) Based on objection to a certain war.
(5) Based upon insincerity.
(a) The most important consideration is not whether applicants are sincere in wanting to be designated as a
conscientious objector, but whether their asserted convictions are sincerely held. Sincerity is determined by an impartial
evaluation of each person’s thinking and living in totality, past and present. The conduct of persons, in particular their
outward manifestation of the beliefs asserted, will be carefully examined and given substantial weight in evaluating
their application.
(b) Relevant factors that should be considered in determining a person’s claim of conscientious objection include
training in the home and church; general demeanor and pattern of conduct; participation in religious activities; whether
ethical or moral convictions were gained through training, study, contemplation, or other activity comparable in rigor
and dedication to the processes by which traditional religious convictions are formulated; credibility of persons
supporting the claim.
(c) Applicants may have sought release from the Army through several means simultaneously, or in rapid succession
AR 600–43 • 21 August 2006 1
(medical or hardship discharge, and so forth). They may have some major commitments during the time their beliefs
were developing that are inconsistent with their claim. They may have applied for conscientious objector status shortly
after becoming aware of the prospect of undesirable or hazardous duty or having been rejected for a special program.
The timing of their application alone, however, is never enough to furnish a basis in fact to support a disapproval.
These examples serve merely as indicators that further inquiry as to the person’s sincerity is warranted. Recommendations
for disapproval should be supported by additional evidence beyond these indicators.
b. Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply because those beliefs are incompatible with
one’s own. Church membership or adherence to certain theological tenets are not required to warrant separation or
assignment to noncombatant training and service. Mere affiliation with a church or other group that advocates
conscientious objection as a tenet of its creed does not necessarily determine a person’s position or belief. Conversely,
affiliation with a church group that does not teach conscientious objection does not necessarily rule out adherence to
conscientious objection beliefs. Applicants may be or may have been a member of a church, religious organization, or
religious sect; and the claim of conscientious objection may be related to such membership. If so, inquiry may be made
as to their membership, the teaching of their church, religious organization or sect, as well as their religious activity.
However, the fact that these persons may disagree with, or not subscribe to, some of the tenets of their church does not
necessarily discredit their claim. The personal convictions of each person will dominate so long as they derive from the
person’s moral, ethical, or religious beliefs. The task is to decide whether the beliefs professed are sincerely held and
whether they govern the claimant’s actions in word and deed.
c. The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation or assignment to
noncombatant training and service is on the applicant. To this end, applicants must establish, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the nature or basis of the claim comes within the definition of criteria prescribed in this regulation for
conscientious objection and that their beliefs are sincere. Applicants have the burden of determining and setting forth
the exact nature of the request; that is, whether they request separation based on conscientious objection (1–0) or
reassignment to noncombatant training and service based on conscientious objection (1–A–0).
d. An applicant claiming (1–0) status will not be granted (1–A–0) status as a compromise. Similarly, discharge will
not be recommended for those who apply for classification as a noncombatant.
e. This regulation will not be used to effect the administrative separation of persons who do not qualify as
conscientious objectors. Nor will it be used instead of administrative separation procedures such as those provided for
unsatisfactory performance, substandard performance of duty, or misconduct, or as otherwise set forth in other Army
regulations (AR 600–8–24 or AR 635–200). Under no circumstances will administrative separation of these persons be
effected according to this regulation.
f. This regulation does not prevent the administrative elimination, according to law and Army regulations, of any
person whose performance of duty after reclassification as a (1–A–0) conscientious objector is substandard or who
exhibits another basis for elimination.
