## Facts

- Mary Hanna, M.D., was a captain in the U.S. Army who entered through the Health Professions Scholarship Program (HPSP), under which the Army paid for medical school in exchange for later active-duty service.
- In her HPSP materials, Hanna stated she had the “strength and determination to practice medicine in the Army.”
- After medical school, the Army deferred her active-duty start while she completed a four-year anesthesiology residency.
- In October 2005, the Army ordered Hanna to report for active duty in August 2006.
- On December 23, 2005—during residency and after receiving orders—Hanna applied for discharge as a conscientious objector (CO), stating that participation, direct or indirect, in war, violence, and killing conflicted with her Christian faith.
- Hanna explained that her faith had been uncertain when she applied for the HPSP, but had solidified by the time she sought CO status.
- As part of the CO process, Hanna was interviewed by an Army chaplain and an Army psychiatrist; both expressed doubts about her sincerity.
- An investigating officer later conducted a hearing and found Hanna’s beliefs sincere, recommending approval of her CO application.
- Officers who reviewed the investigating officer’s report also found Hanna sincere and recommended approval.
- The Department of the Army Conscientious Objector Review Board (DACORB) nonetheless denied the application, citing insincerity and treating the timing of the request (close to the report date for active duty) as suspicious.
- Hanna filed a habeas petition in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts challenging the denial; the district court granted relief and enjoined the Army from forcing her into active duty.
- The Army appealed to the First Circuit.

## Issues

1. Whether the DACORB had a “basis in fact” in the administrative record to deny Hanna’s CO application on the ground that her professed beliefs were not sincere.
2. Whether suspicious timing and alleged inconsistencies—raised by the Army in litigation—could supply a factual basis when the DACORB did not rely on those inconsistency theories in its stated decision.

## Decision

- The First Circuit affirmed the district court’s grant of habeas relief.
- The court held the DACORB’s denial was “without a basis in fact” because the record lacked concrete evidence inconsistent with Hanna’s claimed beliefs and sincerity.
- The court rejected reliance on timing alone as sufficient support for a finding of insincerity, particularly where the investigative process produced consistent recommendations of sincerity and approval.
- The court declined to accept post hoc rationalizations offered on appeal (such as claimed inconsistencies between the HPSP statement and the CO application) that were not identified by the DACORB as reasons for denial.

## Legal Principles

- Judicial review of a military conscientious-objector determination applies the highly deferential “basis in fact” standard, but the decision still must rest on some objective, record-based evidence that conflicts with the applicant’s claim.
- A suspicion based on the timing of an application may be considered, but timing alone—without other record evidence showing insincerity—does not provide a factual basis to deny CO status.
- Beliefs may develop or “crystallize” after entry into service; late development does not, by itself, show bad faith.
- A reviewing court evaluates whether the board’s stated reasons are supported by the record; the government generally cannot defend the decision using new explanations not adopted by the board.
- Even under strong deference to military judgments, a conclusory finding of insincerity cannot stand where the record otherwise supports sincerity and lacks contradictory facts.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit affirmed habeas relief because the Army’s conscientious-objector review board denied Hanna’s discharge request without record evidence supporting its finding of insincerity, relying mainly on suspicious timing and conclusory doubt, while the investigative record and multiple reviewers supported Hanna’s sincerity and the board’s denial could not be sustained under the “basis in fact” standard.


Hanna v. Secretary of the Army, 513 F.3d 4 (2008)