ORDER
RICHARD C. FREEMAN, District Judge.
Petitioner, a private in the United States Army presently stationed at Fort Gordon, Georgia, brings this habeas corpus proceeding seeking his discharge from the Army as a conscientious objector. Petitioner was inducted into the Army on October 12, 1970. On February 12, 1971, petitioner submitted an application to the Army for a discharge as a conscientious objector. On June 23, 1971, the Adjutant General of the Army, who is the final decision maker within the Army on the matter, disapproved petitioner's application stating that "applicant's professed views became fixed prior to his entry into active military service." On July 21, 1971, petitioner filed with this court a petition for a writ of habeas corpus.1 A hearing, at which petitioner was represented by counsel, was held before this court on August 17, 1971.
In accordance with the national policy as expressed in the Military Service Act of 1967,2 the Department of Defense issued Directive 1300.6, which establishes rules and procedures governing the claims of conscientious objectors whose convictions crystallize after entry into military service. In compliance with this Directive, the Army promulgated the following regulations:
3. Policy. a. Consideration will be given to requests for separation based on bona fide conscientious objection to participation in war, in any form, when such objection develops subsequent to entry into the military service.
b. Federal courts have held that a claim to exemption from military service under Selective Service laws must be interposed prior to notice of induction, and failure to make timely claim for exemption constitutes waiver of the right to claim. However, claims based on conscientious objection growing out of experiences prior to entering military service, but which did not become fixed until entry into the service, will be considered. Requests for discharge after entering military service will not be favorably considered when—
1. Based on conscientious objection which existed, but which was not claimed prior to notice of induction, enlistment or appointment.
2. Based solely on conscientious objection claimed and denied by the Selective Service System prior to induction.
3. Based solely upon consideration of policy, pragmatism or expediency.
4. Based on objection to a particular war. AR 635-20 (July 31, 1970) (emphasis added).
Pursuant to the above regulation, petitioner submitted a five page application containing biographical background and the reasons3 upon which he based his claim for discharge as a conscientious objector.
Annexed to the application were six letters from various pre-enlistment acquaintances, all attesting to the sincerity of petitioner's beliefs.
In compliance with Army regulations,4 petitioner was interviewed by a psychiatrist, a chaplain and his commanding officer. Petitioner was also interviewed by various other officers in the chain of command. The psychiatrist did not make any comment on petitioner's beliefs. The chaplain found that petitioner's beliefs were religious in origin and sincerely held5 but he made no recommendation for approval or disapproval of the application and he made no comment as to when petitioner's beliefs became fixed. Petitioner's commanding officer and other officers in the chain of command found petitioner to be sincere in his beliefs. Although all these officers recommended approval of petitioner's application, only his installation commander commented on when petitioner's beliefs had become fixed.
The Army Conscientious Review Board, upon review of the entire record containing the recommendations for approval by all officers in the chain of command, recommended disapproval of petitioner's application stating:
1. The member's application for discharge as a conscientious objector was considered under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-20, 31 July 1970. No vested right exists for any person to be discharged from the Army at his own request, even for conscientious objection, prior to the expiration of his term of service. Discharge for conscientious objection is at the grace of the Secretary of the Army and the applicant bears the burden of clearly establishing that he meets the requirements provided by the Secretary in the above-cited regulation. The Board finds that PVT Wilson has not satisfied this burden.
a. Under AR 635-20 consideration may not be given to claims based on conscientious objection which existed (became fixed) prior to the claimant's entering military service and not claimed before his Selective Service board. Applicant indicates in his application that he did not apply for conscientious objector status to his local board because "* * * my beliefs were not yet matured enough for a decision at that time." The statement indicates that prior to entering the military applicant did possess the beliefs of a conscientious objector, but felt that those beliefs did not possess sufficient depth or maturity to qualify for 1-O status. By applying while now in the service, applicant must now establish that his present beliefs have matured and are held with more depth than those which he possessed prior to his entry into the military. Yet, applicant does not indicate, at any point in his application, how his beliefs have changed or strengthened or what recent experiences or activities have had any profound effect upon the formation of his views. Applicant has served in the Army since October, 1970, yet neither does he cite any Army experiences which have had any profound effect upon him or his beliefs. Since his beliefs have not apparently changed, the Board must conclude that the beliefs which are presented in this application are the same beliefs which applicant held prior to his entry into the Selective Service System. Since these beliefs appear to have matured, deepened or changed the Board must conclude that these beliefs were fixed prior to his entry into the military. In this regard, the Board has considered the statement by applicant's installation commander stating that it appears that applicant's beliefs have crystallized since his entry onto active duty. However, applicant's installation commander does not cite any matters in this application or any independent facts which support that conclusion.
b. In considering the merits of this application, the Board must also conclude that applicant lacks the depth of conviction required to qualify for discharge as a conscientious objector.6 As he himself states, he feels that his beliefs were not possessed with sufficient maturity or depth prior to his entry into the military. Applicant has shown no activities, experiences, thought, study or any other matters which establish that since that time his beliefs have matured, deepened or changed significantly. Consequently, the Board must conclude that the beliefs which he now possesses are held with
...