## Facts

- Lt. Alvin A. Rosenfeld, a Naval Reserve physician-psychiatrist, incurred an active-duty obligation after completing residency.
- Before reporting to active duty, Rosenfeld applied for discharge as a conscientious objector, asserting sincere moral and religious opposition to war, shaped in part by his Jewish background and the Holocaust.
- In administrative proceedings, Navy officials questioned Rosenfeld using extreme hypotheticals, including whether he would fight if the United States were invaded for the purpose of exterminating Jews.
- Rosenfeld indicated he would act to protect himself and other Jews in that extraordinary scenario, characterizing it as personal self-defense rather than participation in organized warfare.
- The Navy denied conscientious-objector status, reasoning that Rosenfeld’s conditional willingness to fight showed he was not opposed to participation in war “in any form.”
- Rosenfeld sought habeas relief in federal district court; a magistrate recommended relief, but the district court dismissed the petition and upheld the Navy’s denial.
- Rosenfeld appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether the Navy had a legally sufficient “basis in fact” to deny conscientious-objector status on the ground that Rosenfeld was not opposed to participation in war in any form.
2. Whether the Navy unlawfully relied on extreme hypothetical questions (and Rosenfeld’s answers) in rejecting an otherwise sincere conscientious-objector claim.

## Decision

- The First Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of the habeas petition.
- The court held the Navy lacked a “basis in fact” for concluding Rosenfeld was not opposed to participation in war in any form.
- The court ruled that Rosenfeld’s statements about fighting in an extraordinary genocidal-invasion hypothetical reflected a limited self-defense position and did not disqualify him from conscientious-objector status.
- The case was remanded with instructions to grant relief consistent with recognizing Rosenfeld as a conscientious objector and discharging him from further military obligations.
- The court noted constitutional concerns raised by the hypothetical questioning but resolved the case on the “basis in fact” deficiency without extensive constitutional rulings.

## Legal Principles

- Military denial of conscientious-objector status is judicially reviewable under the highly deferential “basis in fact” standard, which still requires a rational evidentiary foundation in the record.
- Conscientious-objector eligibility turns on sincere opposition to participation in war “in any form,” grounded in religious belief or comparably deep moral or ethical conviction.
- An applicant’s acknowledgment of a limited right of personal self-defense, including in extreme and speculative scenarios, does not necessarily negate opposition to war in any form.
- Decisionmakers must assess the applicant’s beliefs in their totality; isolated answers to contrived hypotheticals cannot, without more, supply a basis in fact to reject an otherwise consistent conscientious-objector claim.

## Conclusion

The First Circuit ordered relief because the Navy’s denial rested primarily on Rosenfeld’s conditional, self-defense-oriented answer to an extreme hypothetical, which did not provide a rational factual basis to find he lacked the requisite opposition to war for conscientious-objector discharge.


Rosenfeld v. Rumble, 515 F.2d 498 (1st Cir. 1975)