At a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Hall on the 6th, Kim Young-soo, Director of the Defense Rights Research Institute and the Public Interest Whistleblowing Center, raised allegations of desertion, detention, and additional service during Minister Ahn's time as a defense reservist, asserting that "this is not an allegation, but a case." [Photo=Sisa Focus TV screen capture]

The controversy surrounding the military service record of Minister of National Defense Ahn Gyu-baek during his time as a defense reservist is escalating into an issue of accountability for the Blue House’s civil affairs vetting process. Kim Young-soo, Director of the Defense Rights Research Institute and the Public Interest Whistleblowing Center, held a press conference at the National Assembly Communication Hall on the 6th, where he raised allegations of desertion, detention, and additional service during Minister Ahn's defense reservist service, asserting that "this is not an allegation, but a case."

Director Kim stated, "I am not raising mere allegations. If it is not true, I will take full responsibility," adding, "On June 27th, I filed a complaint under the Act on Testimony and Appraisal Before the National Assembly regarding the long-term desertion incident during Minister Ahn Gyu-baek's defense reservist service, based on his answers during the parliamentary confirmation hearing. The case is currently under investigation by the Yongsan Police Station."

The core of the press conference was not the service record itself, but rather who knew about it and when. Director Kim publicly claimed, "The Blue House Civil Affairs Office, which handled the personnel vetting, was already aware of this before the confirmation hearing on July 15th last year. Some offices of ruling party lawmakers were also aware of it." If these claims are true, the issue extends beyond Minister Ahn's personal military service explanation into potential poor vetting or a cover-up by the Blue House civil affairs team.

"Not an Allegation but a Case"... Allegations of Desertion, Detention, and Additional Service

The gist of Director Kim's claim is that while serving as a defense reservist at the Gochang-gun Daesan-myeon unit of the 35th Infantry Division around 1984, Minister Ahn deserted his post for approximately seven months, was subsequently arrested by the military police, detained for 30 days, and consequently had to serve about eight months of additional service before being discharged on August 31, 1985.

"Defense reservists commute to work; a desertion means he did not show up for work for seven months," Director Kim stated. "The point is that this was not due to unavoidable circumstances, but an illegal long-term desertion." He further noted that in addition to the service records, other documents—such as personnel orders related to the detention, military police investigation reports, security command incident reports, and inquiry data—should still exist within the military.

However, this is currently Director Kim's public claim. The final facts must be verified through the original military service records, military police investigation files, contemporary personnel orders, and security command inquiry documents.

Truthfulness of Hearing Testimony as a Point of Investigation

Another issue raised by Director Kim concerns Minister Ahn's testimony during his confirmation hearing on July 15th last year. Kim claims that the Minister answered to the effect that "there were absolutely no facts regarding desertion or detention," and that he filed the complaint based on his belief that these were false statements.

According to Director Kim, Minister Ahn explained at the hearing that after being called up as a defense reservist on November 5, 1983, he was investigated for about three days by the 35th Division military police, received a discharge confirmation 14 months later on January 4, 1985, and after returning to school, was contacted by his unit to serve an additional period starting August 3, 1985, finally being discharged on August 31.

It is understood that Minister Ahn’s side has maintained that the service record is factually incorrect and that he is a "victim of military service administration." However, Director Kim countered, "If the service data contains inaccurate information, a correction request should have been filed according to the relevant laws. If he has known this for a long time, why hasn't he corrected it until now?"

The issue splits into two paths here: If the service record is true, it is difficult for Minister Ahn to avoid the controversy over false testimony at his hearing. Conversely, if Minister Ahn's explanation is true, the Military Manpower Administration and military authorities must explain why such an erroneous record was not corrected for so long.

If the Blue House Didn't Know, It Was Dereliction of Duty; If They Did, They Deceived the Public

The most explosive claim at the press conference was that the Blue House Civil Affairs Office was aware of the issue in advance. Director Kim stated, "Service records are fundamental when vetting personnel, not just for ministers, but for bureau-director or vice-ministerial levels as well. Wouldn't the Blue House Civil Affairs Office have checked the critical service records of a Minister of National Defense?"

He continued, "If they didn't check, it is a dereliction of duty; if they checked and ignored it, they deceived the public." This statement elevates the matter from a personal military service issue for Minister Ahn to a fundamental question of responsibility for the entire personnel vetting system.

A defense minister candidate's military service record is not mere private information. It is a vetting item directly linked to the public qualifications of a minister who must command the military and drive defense reform. If the Blue House civil affairs team, responsible for vetting, failed to check the records, it was a negligent vetting process. If they did check and failed to explain it transparently to the National Assembly and the public, it inevitably leads to suspicions of a cover-up.

In particular, Director Kim claimed that "some offices of ruling party lawmakers also knew." If confirmed, this raises additional questions as to whether they understood the significance of the service records during the confirmation process but chose to bury the issue, and what judgments were made during the document request and response process.

Application of the Act on Testimony and Appraisal Before the National Assembly as a Legal Issue

However, the term "perjury" must be handled with legal caution. Under the Act on Testimony and Appraisal Before the National Assembly, perjury is predicated on the false testimony of a witness or appraiser sworn in under this act. A confirmation hearing candidate is the subject of verification and does not automatically hold the status of a "witness." Therefore, regardless of whether Minister Ahn's hearing testimony was factually incorrect, a separate legal determination is required to decide if this constitutes perjury under the Act.

Nevertheless, independent of the application of the Act, the truthfulness of the hearing testimony, the circumstances behind the refusal or non-submission of service records, the failure to request corrections, and whether the vetting team was aware of these issues are all subjects for investigation and parliamentary verification.

Ultimately, the essence of this matter is simple.

Do the entries regarding desertion, detention, and additional service actually exist in Minister Ahn's military service record? When did Minister Ahn first become aware of those records? Did the Blue House Civil Affairs Office verify the relevant data before the confirmation hearing? Were some ruling party lawmakers’ offices also aware of the facts? If they knew, why was it not explained transparently to the public?

If Director Kim's claims are true, this case is no longer just a controversy over military service; it is a suspicion of a cover-up by the Blue House civil affairs line and ruling party members of the hearing committee.

If Minister Ahn feels wronged, there is only one answer: release the original service record, the relevant correction procedures, and the military records from that time. Explanations that cannot be backed by records cannot be the answer for public office verification.