Appeals Court Grants Brooklyn Doctor Conscientious Objector Status

In a ruling that calls into question the U.S. Army’s practice of denying conscientious objector applications without providing a factual basis for those denials, a federal appeals court has granted a Brooklyn doctor’s request to be discharged from the military because he morally objects to warfare.

“The NYCLU and ACLU have long championed the cause of those whose beliefs will not allow them to serve in the military,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. “Dr. Watson had clearly demonstrated the sincerity of his moral objections to war, and we’re pleased he is now free to follow his conscience.”

In a ruling that calls into question the U.S. Army’s practice of denying conscientious objector applications without providing a factual basis for those denials, a federal appeals court has granted a Brooklyn doctor’s request to be discharged from the military because he morally objects to warfare.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit on Thursday upheld a lower court’s decision dismissing Dr. Timothy Watson from the Army. Watson applied for conscientious objector status in 2006 but his request was denied in a conclusory statement by the Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB). Watson asked a federal District Court to reverse the DACORB decision, which it did. On appeal to the federal Court of Appeals, the Army conceded that the decision that it had reached with respect to Watson was inadequate for its failure to provide a factual basis for DACORB’s conclusion. But the government asked the Court to permit DACORB to review Watson’s application again. The lower and appeals court rejected the government’s request, asserting that an examination of the administrative record revealed that there was no factual basis for denying Watson’s application and a further review was unnecessary.

The New York Civil Liberties Union and cooperating attorney Deborah Karpatkin filed a brief with the appeals court supporting Watson, who applied for conscientious objector status because he had come to believe that warfare is immoral and inconsistent with his work as a physician.

“The NYCLU and ACLU have long championed the cause of those whose beliefs will not allow them to serve in the military,” said Donna Lieberman, NYCLU executive director. “Dr. Watson had clearly demonstrated the sincerity of his moral objections to war, and we’re pleased he is now free to follow his conscience.”

The NYCLU amicus brief argued that DACORB’s disregard of its legal obligation to engage in reasoned decisionmaking is unfair to applicants and unfair to courts that are called upon to review the administrative decision.

Arthur Eisenberg, NYCLU legal director, observed that “the failure to engage in reasoned decisionmaking creates a inconsistency and unpredictability to the conscientious objector process.”

Watson, who lives in Brooklyn, received an Army scholarship while attending medical school at George Washington University. The Army offered to pay for Watson’s remaining three years of medical school in exchange for a commitment to serve three years of active duty once he completed his education.

Watson applied for discharge as a conscientious objector in January 2006 during his final year of residency.

In his application, Watson said the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan led him to more fully comprehend the immorality, cruelty and arbitrariness of warfare. He said his objection to war stemmed from his moral, ethical and religious beliefs regarding the sanctity of human life and his role as a physician to improve people’s lives and well being.

Following his discharge as a conscientious objector, Watson will be required to repay the Army for all costs incurred during his medical education.

The NYCLU was joined in its amicus brief by the Center on Conscience & War.