U.S. Army policy for dealing with military personnel who assert a conscientious objection to military combat is set forth in a newly updated Army regulation (pdf).
Criteria for likely approval or rejection of a conscientious objection claim are described. Claims that are insincere or “based on objection to a certain war” will “not be favorably considered.”
The Regulation accepts the reality of conscientious objection with due respect.
“Care must be exercised not to deny the existence of beliefs simply because those beliefs are incompatible with one’s own,” it states.
In any case, “The burden of establishing a claim of conscientious objection as grounds for separation or assignment to noncombatant training and service is on the applicant.”
See “Conscientious Objection,” Army Regulation 600-43, 21 August 2006.
To secure the U.S. bio-infrastructure, maintain global leadership in biotechnology, and safeguard American citizens from emerging threats to their privacy, the federal government must modernize its approach to human genetic and biological data.
To ensure an energy transition that brings broad based economic development, participation, and direct benefits to communities, we need federal policy that helps shape markets. Unfortunately, there is a large gap in understanding of how to leverage federal policy making to support access to capital and credit.
From use to testing to deployment, the scaffolding for responsible integration of AI into high-risk use cases is just not there.
OPM’s new HR 2.0 initiative is entering hostile terrain. Those who have followed federal HR modernization for years desperately want this effort to succeed.