U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,

http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,

U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202–512–1800, or 866–512–1800 (toll-free). E-mail, gpo@custhelp.com.

i 

86–966 2014

[H.A.S.C. No. 113–76] 

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE 

ARMED SERVICES 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

HEARING HELD 

JANUARY 29, 2014 
(II) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

JOE WILSON, South Carolina, Chairman 

WALTER B. JONES, North Carolina 

JOSEPH J. HECK, Nevada 

AUSTIN SCOTT, Georgia 

BRAD R. WENSTRUP, Ohio 

JACKIE WALORSKI, Indiana 

CHRISTOPHER P. GIBSON, New York 

KRISTI L. NOEM, South Dakota 

SUSAN A. DAVIS, California 

ROBERT A. BRADY, Pennsylvania 

MADELEINE Z. BORDALLO, Guam 

DAVID LOEBSACK, Iowa 

NIKI TSONGAS, Massachusetts 

CAROL SHEA-PORTER, New Hampshire 

DAVE GIACHETTI, Professional Staff Member 

DEBRA WADA, Professional Staff Member 

COLIN BOSSE, Clerk 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF HEARINGS 

2014 

Page 

HEARING: 

Wednesday, January 29, 2014, Religious Accommodations in the Armed Services ......................................................................................................................... 1

APPENDIX: 

Wednesday, January 29, 2014 ................................................................................ 23 

WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 29, 2014 

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE ARMED SERVICES 

STATEMENTS PRESENTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS 

Davis, Hon. Susan A., a Representative from California, Ranking Member, 

Subcommittee on Military Personnel ................................................................. 2 

Wilson, Hon. Joe, a Representative from South Carolina, Chairman, Subcommittee on Military Personnel ........................................................................ 1 

WITNESSES 

Magness, Reverend James B., Bishop Suffragan of the Armed Forces and 

Federal Ministries, Washington National Cathedral ........................................ 5 

Penrod, Virginia S., Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy, Department of Defense ................................................................ 3 

Tidd, RDML Mark L., USN, Chief of Navy Chaplains, U.S. Navy; accompanied by BG Charles R. Bailey, USA, Deputy Chief of Chaplains, U.S. 

Army, and Brig Gen Bobby Page, USAF, Deputy Chief Chaplain, U.S. 

Air Force ............................................................................................................... 4 

APPENDIX 

PREPARED STATEMENTS: 

Magness, Reverend James B. .......................................................................... 46 

Penrod, Virginia S. ........................................................................................... 28 

Tidd, RDML Mark L., joint with BG Charles R. Bailey and Brig Gen 

Bobby Page .................................................................................................... 35 

Wilson, Hon. Joe ............................................................................................... 27 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD: 

Statements from: 

American Civil Liberties Union ................................................................... 85 

Americans United for Separation of Church and State ............................. 79 

Anti-Defamation League .............................................................................. 96 

Chaplain Alliance for Religious Liberty ...................................................... 65 

Chaplain MG Douglas L. Carver, USA (Ret.) ............................................. 57 

Family Research Council .............................................................................. 130 

Hon. Doug Collins, a Representative from the State of Georgia .............. 136 

Interfaith Alliance ......................................................................................... 126 

Liberty Institute ............................................................................................ 141 
Page

IV 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD—Continued 

Major Kamaljeet Singh Kalsi ....................................................................... 119 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism ............................................... 128 

Sikh Coalition ................................................................................................ 106 

WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING THE HEARING: 

Mr. Wittman ..................................................................................................... 147 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING: 

Dr. Fleming ....................................................................................................... 151 

Mr. Forbes ......................................................................................................... 157 

Dr. Heck ............................................................................................................ 151 

Ms. Tsongas ...................................................................................................... 151 
(1) 

RELIGIOUS ACCOMMODATIONS IN THE 

ARMED SERVICES 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON ARMED SERVICES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON MILITARY PERSONNEL, Washington, DC, Wednesday, January 29, 2014. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:30 a.m., in room 

2118, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Joe Wilson (chairman 

of the subcommittee) presiding. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE WILSON, A REPRESENTATIVE FROM SOUTH CAROLINA, CHAIRMAN, SUBCOMMITTEE 

ON MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mr. WILSON. Ladies and gentlemen, the hearing will come to 

order. Welcome to a meeting of the House Armed Services Subcommittee on Military Personnel. Today, the subcommittee will examine religious accommodations in the armed services, including 

the military services’ interpretation, enactment, and enforcement of 

religious accommodation statutory and regulatory guidance. 

Historically, the armed services have supported religious freedom 

and, when possible, accommodated service members’ religious beliefs and practices. I believe we can maintain a proper balance between religious accommodations, which will promote military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. This should not 

present challenges to the military services. 

Chaplains have always been vital to our military. I am very 

grateful the chaplain school is located in the district that I represent, at Fort Jackson. One of the strengths of our military is its 

diversity with mutual respect. And as such, it has been important 

for Congress to work with the Department of Defense to ensure 

that appropriate statutory and regulatory guidance is in place in 

order for the services to meet the important spiritual and religious 

needs of our troops. Recognizing that there have been challenges 

in accommodating religious practices and beliefs, we have engaged 

in various efforts to clarify the role of religion in the military, prevent religious discrimination, and provide appropriate religious accommodations for those service members who seek it. 

Our goal today is to better understand how the Department of 

Defense has balanced the implementation of the religious accommodations policy with maintaining military readiness, unit cohesion, and good order and discipline. 

Before I introduce our panel, let me offer Congresswoman Susan 

Davis, the ranking member from California, an opportunity to 

make her opening remarks. 
2 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wilson can be found in the Appendix on page 27.] 

STATEMENT OF HON. SUSAN A. DAVIS, A REPRESENTATIVE 

FROM CALIFORNIA, RANKING MEMBER, SUBCOMMITTEE ON 

MILITARY PERSONNEL 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to also welcome our witnesses today. Thank you very 

much for being with us. Today’s hearing on the accommodation of 

religious beliefs, including the right to observe no religion at all, by 

service members is an important issue. Over the past several 

years, the committee has attempted to balance the accommodation 

of religious beliefs of service members and chaplains with the need 

for commanders to establish and to maintain good order and discipline among their ranks. It is especially difficult for military 

chaplains who face difficult and unique challenges, unlike our 

chaplains or our rabbis in communities where congregations are 

able to self-select where and whom they choose to receive their 

spiritual support. 

Military chaplains must provide spiritual care for all of those 

who serve in the military, most of which may not share their particular faith, or religious beliefs. This challenge has often created 

the perception that the Department of Defense or the services are 

prohibiting chaplains and service members from practicing the tenets of their faith. Often in these discussions what is lost is a recognition that a military chaplain’s responsibility is not just to his 

or her tenets of their faith and those who follow that specific faith, 

but we know that ultimately, responsibility of military chaplains 

and why we have chaplains in the uniform at all, is to provide nondenominational, inclusive, spiritual support to all of those in uniform and their families, regardless of their specific religious belief. 

Our Armed Forces is a reflection of our country. Our country, 

which is comprised of individuals from all walks of religious beliefs, 

to those who have no belief in a specific religion, including atheists 

and free thinkers. Our diversity is what makes our country stronger and our ability to respect different cultures and beliefs, including religious beliefs, is the bedrock of our American values. We 

need to ensure that these values are upheld and protected for all 

service members and military clergy alike. 

Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing 

from our witnesses. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Davis, and I appreciate your commitment to our clergy serving in the military. 

I would like to welcome our distinguished witnesses. Ms. V. 

Penrod, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Military Personnel Policy; Chaplain Mark L. Tidd, Rear Admiral, Chief of Navy 

Chaplains; Chaplain Bobby Page, Brigadier General, Deputy Chief 

of Chaplains, U.S. Air Force; Chaplain Charles R. Bailey, Brigadier 

General, Deputy Chief of Chaplains, U.S. Army; Right Reverend 

James B. Magness, Captain Retired, U.S. Navy, Bishop Suffragan 

for the Armed Forces and Federal Ministries; and our last witness, 

who could not be with us today, due to unusual winter weather, a 

unique snow storm from Florida in the southeast United States 

this week, was Mr. Douglas Carver, Chaplain Major General Re-
3 

tired, U.S. Army, Executive Director of the North American Mission Board. 

We will enter his testimony for the record. 

[The statement of Mr. Carver can be found in the Appendix on 

page 57.] 

Mr. WILSON. I now ask unanimous consent that Congressman 

Robert Wittman of Virginia, Congressman Randy Forbes of Virginia, Congressman Dr. John Fleming of Louisiana, Congressman 

Steve Palazzo of Mississippi, Congressman Rich Nugent of Florida, 

Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas, Congresswoman Vicky 

Hartzler of Missouri, Congressman Jim Bridenstine of Oklahoma, 

Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama, Congressman Doug 

Lamborn of Colorado, Congressman Bradley Byrne of Alabama, 

and Congressman Alan Nunnelee of Mississippi be allowed to participate and ask questions after all members from the subcommittee have had the opportunity to question the witnesses. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

In addition, I ask unanimous consent to enter the following statements into the record: From the Chaplains Alliance for Religious 

Liberty, from the Americans United for Separation of Church and 

State, from the American Civil Liberties Union, from the Anti-Defamation League, from the Sikh Coalition, from the U.S. Army 

Major Kamal Kalsi, from the Interfaith Alliance, from the Religious 

Action Center, from the Family Research Council, and from Congressman Doug Collins of Georgia. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The statements referred to can be found in the Appendix beginning on page 65.] 

Mr. WILSON. Ms. Penrod, we will begin with your testimony. 

We will follow with a statement from Admiral Tidd, representing 

the chaplains, and then to our non-governmental witnesses. 

As reminder, keep your statements to three minutes. We have 

your written testimony for the record. 

Following your testimony, each member will participate in 

rounds of 3 minutes each until adjournment. And there are extraordinary time constraints. We just learned that votes may be at 

10:20. And certainly, everyone would be given the opportunity to 

provide questions for the record. 

Ms. Penrod. 

STATEMENT OF VIRGINIA S. PENROD, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR MILITARY PERSONNEL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Ms. PENROD. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member 

Davis, and distinguished members of the subcommittee. Thank you 

for the opportunity to provide testimony today. The Department 

places a high value on helping chaplains as well as military personnel and their families to observe the tenets of their faith. 

As you now know, we have revised and published policy on the 

accommodation of religious practices within the military services to 

ensure the protection of rights of conscience of members in the 

Armed Forces in accordance with the 2013 and 2014 National Defense Authorization Act [NDAA]. Part of the delay in publication 
4 

was necessary to incorporate the changes in law in the last two 

NDAAs. 

In response to concerns of the Congress, I conducted a teleconference with over 30 of our hard-working chaplains in the field. I 

asked if they are allowed to preach or practice according to the tenets of their faith. Their response was an overwhelming yes. They 

felt they were given the support they needed from command. When 

asked if they were forced to perform ceremonies that went against 

their faith, 100 percent said no. 

There were a few chaplains that felt some of the leadership positions tend to be overly reactive to social media. However, almost 

all believed the key to a productive and trusting climate was good 

communication and continued training on the rights of chaplains 

and not only the chaplains, but also for commander. Our chaplains 

and commanders continue to navigate recent policy changes, such 

as same-sex marriage, but have not expressed a difficulty in doing 

so. 

The group felt that social media and rumors were the source of 

most misinformation, and these create constant challenges to keep 

the chaplains properly informed of the facts. I am and continue to 

be most impressed with our military chaplaincy. Although a small 

sampling, my direct communication with the chaplains reinforced 

what the service chiefs of chaplains have been telling us, that they 

have open communication with their chaplains and that their chaplains are not concerned regarding the free exercise or expression of 

their faith. If an incident does occur, they are confident it will be 

worked appropriately. 

Your concern for our chaplains gave me the idea to pulse the 

field for direct feedback. As we continue to pulse the field, another 

form will be the survey, as directed by the 2014 NDAA. 

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and the distinguished members of this subcommittee for your strong advocacy on 

behalf of the men and women of the Department of Defense and 

your steadfast support for military chaplaincy. I look forward to 

your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Penrod can be found in the Appendix on page 28.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much. 

And Captain Tidd. 

STATEMENT OF RDML MARK L. TIDD, USN, CHIEF OF NAVY 

CHAPLAINS, U.S. NAVY; ACCOMPANIED BY BG CHARLES R. 

BAILEY, USA, DEPUTY CHIEF OF CHAPLAINS, U.S. ARMY, AND 

BRIG GEN BOBBY PAGE, USAF, DEPUTY CHIEF CHAPLAIN, 

U.S. AIR FORCE 

Admiral TIDD. Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and 

esteemed members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today to address how the chaplaincies of the 

military departments support the religious and spiritual needs of 

our people. 

With my colleagues here, we are members of the Armed Forces 

Chaplains Board, and together, we do have a few decades of experience in military ministry. And that has been our privilege and 

honor. Part of the genius of the American way is that we are com-
5 

mitted to recognizing that each person has the right to determine 

his or her own deepest convictions, including one’s religious convictions. 

As chaplains, we work together cooperatively to meet the religious needs of as many of our people as we can, always guided by 

the teachings of our religious bodies. And we care for all with dignity and respect and compassion, whatever their religious beliefs. 

For many of our people, religious faith is an essential component, 

even the foundation, of their resilience in the face of adversity. 

Chaplains bring a message of hope for all who seek our support, 

often in times of our deepest human need. Chaplains oversee religious ministries around the globe, aboard ships at sea, in battalions and brigades, on flight lines, in our installation chapels, in 

military hospitals, and in combat. These ministries build resistance—resilience, and they help our people to be ready to meet the 

demands of military service. 

We also act as advisors to commanders on unit morale, on morals 

and ethics, and on the free exercise of religion. In the last 8 

months, the chiefs of chaplains have communicated with our chaplains to reaffirm the protections afforded them by the Constitution, 

by law, and by policy when performing their religious ministry. We 

have also provided guidance on ways to resolve issues that they 

might face in providing religious ministry. 

When we are made aware of a situation that appears to challenge the religious freedom of service members, including chaplains, we are eager to step forward to help resolve it. We expect our 

chaplains to be guided by the teachings of their religious bodies to 

work together and to provide outstanding religious ministry that 

includes responsive pastoral care. Our chaplains are meeting the 

religious needs of our people around the world to the greatest extent possible. 

Again, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and distinguished members of the committee, thank you for the opportunity 

to appear before you today. We look forward to answering your 

questions. 

[The joint prepared statement of Admiral Tidd, General Bailey, 

and General Page can be found in the Appendix on page 35.] 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Chaplain Tidd. 

And we now proceed to Right Reverend Magness. 

STATEMENT OF REVEREND JAMES B. MAGNESS, BISHOP SUFFRAGAN OF THE ARMED FORCES AND FEDERAL MINISTRIES, WASHINGTON NATIONAL CATHEDRAL 

Rev. MAGNESS. Good morning, Chairman Wilson, Ranking Member Davis, and esteemed members of the committee. 

Thank you for inviting me here today. It is an honor to speak 

with you. Since 2010, I have been the Bishop for the Armed Forces 

and Federal Ministries for the Episcopal Church. In that capacity, 

I endorse and work with all Episcopal chaplains in the Armed 

Forces. 

I have had the honor of serving the Navy in two capacities during my military career. I served first as an enlisted person on ships 

and in Vietnam, later becoming a Navy chaplain, retiring in the 

rank of captain and served as Command Chaplain of U.S. Joint 
6 

Forces Command and Fleet Chaplain for the U.S. Fleet Forces 

Command. 

Based upon my own service, my work now with the Episcopal 

chaplains who serve, I would like to share my thoughts with you. 

Based upon my service now—in 1976, my Navy enlisted service, I 

stood before a Navy officer to take the solemn oath of office as a 

Navy Chaplain Corps officer. Instinctively, I knew that when I took 

the commissioning oath, I was committing myself as never before 

to serve our service men and women. Not only was I taking this 

oath as an officer, I was making the pledge that I would support 

their rights that are guaranteed by the First Amendment to the 

Constitution. 

I have learned that the military chaplain may at times be required to place the needs and rights of the service member ahead 

of his or her own needs and rights. I learned that as a religious 

leader, the ministry of a military chaplain is in some very significant ways different from that of their civilian counterparts. Normally, a civilian religious leader is only responsible for and accountable to the congregation to which called; whereas, the military chaplain has a far broader set of responsibilities. These responsibilities are to care for America’s sons and daughters, who 

come from every sector of this country. 

During my first active duty assignment as a chaplain, I learned 

a meaningful lesson when I was asked to participate in a retirement ceremony and offer prayers for the retiree, a Navy captain of 

the Dental Corps. Using my distinctively Christian Book of Common Prayer, I created a prayer, which as I recall, ended with these 

words, ‘‘through Jesus Christ our Lord.’’ 

Later, the retiring officer came up to me to thank me for being 

available to assist and then, in a calm and reasoned way, said to 

me, ‘‘You might want to know that all of the members of my family 

and I who are present here today are practicing Jews.’’ 

It didn’t take me long to realize that I had just excluded and offended the honoree and all of the members of his family by offering 

an inappropriate prayer. I learned that when in uniform, my responsibility is to care for all of those who are present, not just 

those of my own faith tradition; for all people, Christian, Jew, Muslim, nontheist, straight, gay, or lesbian, all people. 

I tell this story because in a number of ways it gets to the heart 

of the subject of this hearing. I believe that the current law and 

the Department of Defense policies provide more than adequate 

guidance in matters of religious accommodation for service members and chaplains alike. I am satisfied that when there have been 

instances of religious discrimination, the service leaders have invariably taken swift and appropriate action to ensure that fairness 

and equality and mission accomplishment are all held in a productive balance. 

In today’s very complex social and cultural environment, I believe that the service leaders are doing a splendid job of using existing law and policy and finding creative ways to ensure universal 

religious accommodation for all people. Thank you for having the 

opportunity to speak with you. 

[The prepared statement of Rev. Magness can be found in the 

Appendix on page 46.] 
7 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Reverend. 

Thank you very much, and as we proceed, David Giachetti is 

going to be maintaining a 3-minute rule, including on me. 

And I am so grateful that we have had so many colleagues who 

wanted to be here today because this issue is so important. 

And indeed, Chaplain Tidd, I think it confirms what you said, 

that the chaplaincy is an essential component of military service, 

and for our family, my oldest son served for a year in Iraq, and his 

roommate was Chaplain Steve Shugart. We learned firsthand what 

extraordinary service and how meaningful that is for our military 

service members. 

Ms. Penrod, what was the delay in publishing the implementing 

instruction enacting this legislation, and why was the provision on 

chaplains not included in the published instruction? 

Ms. PENROD. Well, thank you for those questions, Mr. Chairman. 

We were actually in the process of publishing our instruction 

that included accommodation of religious practices in the military 

services. That particular instruction includes the protection of 

rights of all our service members, which includes our chaplains. It 

takes anywhere between 9 months to 18 months to publish an instruction in the Department, although not ideal. I will be the first 

to criticize the process. 

However, when the watch was changed in 2013, we decided to include the change in law in that instruction, which required us to 

pull the instruction and begin the process over. So there was a 

delay. We are not pleased with the delay, but we did want to include the change as far as it pertained to all our service members. 

The specific section of law, 533(b) that pertains to chaplains will 

be included in a different instruction. That one is the guidance for 

appointment of our chaplains. That instruction is under revision, 

and we are pushing hard to have that completed by this summer. 

Mr. WILSON. And so you would anticipate completion by July 1. 

Ms. PENROD. I would not want to give a specific date, Mr. Chairman, but our goal is to have it this summer. 

Mr. WILSON. And as soon as possible. It is just so helpful to our 

military. Additionally, how long do the services have to publish 

their companion regulations on this issue, and will the Department 

be able to meet the 90-day deadline to publish further implementing regulations as required by the fiscal year 2014 National 

Defense Authorization Act? 

Ms. PENROD. I can leave it to the chaplains to speak to the specific instructions, but I believe they have already put out a guidance through memos and emails to the field, to—so that they know 

that these changes are in place. 

Mr. WILSON. And for everyone, again, I appreciate your being 

here, but you can tell the Members of Congress are vitally interested, our constituents, service members, military families, veterans, are vitally interested in your input and your service. And 

that is why, to me, this is a record turnout at any subcommittee 

and truly a reflection of the concern of the people of our country 

about supporting the service of our chaplains. 

I now turn to Congresswoman Davis. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and Ms. Penrod, I wanted to—again, please, I understand that the Department has inves-
8 

tigated allegations of chaplains being required to perform duties inconsistent with the tenets of their faith but have not necessarily 

been able to substantiate those claims. Is that correct? 

Ms. PENROD. Yes, Congresswoman Davis, I cannot speak to specific cases, but to my knowledge, we have not had instances where 

we can pinpoint a specific chaplain that has complained or provided evidence that they have been forced to provide a sermon or 

attend a ceremony or oversee a ceremony that went against the 

dictates of their particular religion. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. I wonder also then if the Department or 

the services track complaints by service members who were subject 

to inappropriate proselytizing by other service members or by military chaplain. Do we know anything about that? 

Ms. PENROD. Chairman Davis, I would need to defer to our chaplains to speak to any specifics. 

Admiral TIDD. Ma’am, we have not received those kinds of complaints. It is not something that we have been tracking, but we are 

certainly very sensitive to those and eager to get information on 

that if that is the case. 

Mrs. DAVIS. But to your knowledge, there haven’t been any that 

have come to you or to others who have spoken with you? 

Admiral TIDD. Not to my knowledge, ma’am. 

General BAILEY. It is the same with the Army, ma’am. There are 

no complaints that we have received, nor have we had any accumulation of those complaints, but we are sensitive to that and are 

monitoring constantly any issues that are out there. 

General PAGE. That would also be true for the Air Force. It is 

something very, very important to us that all airmen are free to 

practice their faith, and I am not aware of any cases where airmen 

are complaining about or alleging that they have been mistreated 

for lack of faith or disagreeing with someone. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Okay, thank you. 

And Bishop Magness, if I could turn to you, and I appreciate the 

story that you shared with us. One of the—could you talk just a 

little bit more about how you feel that allowing sectarian prayers 

at military ceremonies would harm unit cohesion and other important goals and laws that we have? 

Rev. MAGNESS. Yes, thank you for the question, Congresswoman 

Davis. And I base most of this on my own experience, both as a 

practitioner of religion within the Department of Defense and also 

as one who had occasion to supervise a large number of chaplains 

from time to time. 

The issue of good order and discipline and unit cohesion is incredibly important, and when we find ourselves offending others by 

the use of sectarian prayers, that has a significant negative impact 

upon good order, discipline, and unit cohesion. In the case that I 

cited with this Navy captain and the Dental Corps, he certainly 

was of senior rank and able to come forward and state his complaint. And I was a lieutenant, Navy lieutenant at the time. 

However, in other cases, I fear that those who have their—feel 

that they have their rights violated and have intrusive prayers offered with them, sectarian prayers, will not come forward. They 

don’t feel the opportunity to come forward. They don’t feel that 

they have a voice in the organization because of their situation, 
9 

place in the system that they—in which they participate. So I think 

unit cohesion is incredibly important in this issue. 

Mrs. DAVIS. Thank you. 

My time is up. 

Mr. WILSON. And thank you, Ms. Davis. 

And indeed, the significance of appreciation of chaplains is indicated. We have been joined by the chairman of the House Armed 

Services Committee, Buck McKeon of California. 

So, Chairman McKeon, thank you for being here. 

We proceed now to Congressman Dr. Joe Heck of Nevada. 

Dr. HECK. Thank you Mr. Chair. 

And thanks Ms. Penrod, Chaplains, Right Reverend, thank you 

all for being here to talk about this important issue. And as we can 

see, it is also not just a big issue from the sake of the chaplaincy, 

but also for the Sikh community. Several members are present 

here today. 

And Ms. Penrod, I know that DODI 1300.17 [Department of Defense Instruction] was recently revised. But it is my understanding 

that there is still within the DODI a presumptive ban on members 

of the Sikh religion from joining, from having to give up their articles of faith, from having to seek an accommodation every time 

they have a change of assignment, and whether or not there is still 

some question as if they are allowed to access into the service, 

whether or not they have to stop wearing their head gear, or shave 

while going through boot camp until an accommodation is granted. 

Can you please explain why there remains the presumptive ban? 

I know, previously, I served with Colonel Sekhon, who is one of the 

trailblazers when he was commander of the 349th CSH [Combat 

Support Hospital] and seemed to be able to overcome every obstacle 

that the military tried to put in his way from effective service. I 

am curious why the DODI still maintains those bans. 

Ms. PENROD. It is good to see you again, Dr. Heck. What the 

DODI, what the changes do, it tries to balance the needs or provides the service the ability to balance the needs of the service 

member with the needs against mission accomplishment. What we 

have done is decisions relating to any waiver of a regulation or policy that pertains to uniform, wearing of religious articles of clothing is now elevated to the service secretary and cannot be delegated below a three-star level. So it is at a very high level and the 

decision with the—we have delegated that to service, and the reason behind that is the service is in the best position to determine 

their readiness needs, to determine unit cohesion, safety and 

health of not only the individual, but the unit. 

The service has the responsibility, though, to look at the request 

of the individual, and it has to be a compelling governmental interest before they make that decision. They will look at the facts. 

They will look at precedence in making that decision. So that is 

what we have done in this particular DODI. 

Dr. HECK. But does it still require, correct me if I am wrong, but 

does it still require a new waiver every time there is a change of 

assignment? If it is now elevated to the three-star level, you would 

think that that would carry through in the person’s lifetime of service, as opposed to every time they change assignment. 
10 

Ms. PENROD. Well, Dr. Heck, when you look at military readiness, each unit of assignment has a different responsibility. The 

service has to make that determination if now this new position or 

new job that the individual would be performing impacts safety, 

health, the unit, they may deny the accommodation. 

Dr. HECK. I understand. I know we are short on time today because of a compressed timeframe, I would like to discuss this more 

offline with you, and we can kind of do a bigger deep dive into this 

issue. 

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Heck. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. Brad Wenstrup of Ohio. 

Dr. WENSTRUP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You know, I found that when I served in theater in Iraq that, 

you know, there was definitely an effort by the chaplain to be respectful of all religions. And I found that our chaplain was able to 

provide compassion and comfort for anyone who was in need, even 

if they were nonbelievers of any type. And I think that that is an 

effective role of a chaplain, and I think chaplains display a tremendous ability to be accommodating. 

You know, personally, I am not offended by anyone praying in 

their own way. That doesn’t bother me. Some people do get offended if someone is praying in a different way. 

I don’t really have a question today, but I would caution us as 

we proceed just to recognize that there is a fine line between accommodating and respecting all religions and restricting religious 

freedom. And that is the line that we are walking on here. And I 

think we have to be very cautious. And I hope that we are going 

in the right direction in trying to accomplish that. 

And I thank you all for being here today. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Wenstrup. 

We now proceed to Congressman Austin Scott of Georgia. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess I share the same concerns that my colleague, Dr. 

Wenstrup, shares. 

I have a specific question, though. As a Christian, I am very respectful of other people’s right to practice their faith. We have a 

First Amendment in this country. It is what our country was 

founded on; founded on the First, protected by the Second. And it 

seems that in the military people of my faith can get reprimanded 

for a statement as simple as one saying that my priorities in life 

are a commitment to my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, a commitment to my family, and a commitment to my country, in that order. 

I am aware of a colonel that got reprimanded in a change of command for saying that on the stage. He didn’t say that anybody in 

the crowd had to believe as he did or share his priorities. And my 

question is, can you give me any example of a person of a faith 

other than a Christian faith, where they were reprimanded for a 

statement that was that simple? 

Ms. PENROD. Congressman, thank you for your question. I cannot 

give you an example of anyone that was reprimanded for expressing their religious beliefs because really it is free speech. We become concerned in the Department if an individual is coercing any 

other individual or impacting unit cohesion. 
11 

Again, I can defer to the chiefs of chaplains if they know of any 

instance, but I do not know. 

Mr. SCOTT. Ma’am, if I may, we know of instances where Christians have been reprimanded for statements as simple as that. Are 

you saying that you know that there are no other instances of people of any other faith? 

Ms. PENROD. I know of no instances of any faith. If you do have 

examples, the Department would be more than willing to look into 

specific examples. 

Mr. SCOTT. We will get you that information. And I would ask 

for the different branches, if they would, to—this was an Air Force 

colonel that the reprimand came to. If each of you would speak 

briefly to that, I have got 30 seconds. 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, I am not aware of any of those instances. 

General BAILEY. Also, I am not aware either, sir, but also, that 

there is—if there was an instance possibly, a chaplain would be 

there to advise the command that that was a wrong procedure to 

go by. 

General PAGE. Thank you for bringing up this issue. 

Commanders are also airmen. Airmen are free to practice their 

faith. In order for the airmen under that commander, under any 

person of authority, to practice their faith, it is necessary that the 

commander, as the agent of the government, if you will, exercise 

some discretion and some wisdom in what he, she, would do, so 

that the people under him, under her, would be able to practice 

their faith. 

So as long as the person of authority, as long as it is clear that 

what he is saying is personal and not official, not an expectation, 

he is free to practice his faith and speak of his faith. 

Mr. SCOTT. My time is expired, thank you. 

And we will get you a copy of the reprimand if he will share it 

with us. It is clearly biased. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Scott. 

We now proceed to Congressman Dr. John Fleming of Louisiana. 

Dr. FLEMING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And before I ask questions, I would like to address the chair if 

I could. First of all, we have about an hour for a subject that could 

go on for days. I am very concerned about that. We have many 

Members here who are not even on this subcommittee, which, 

again, shows you how much interest there is. There is a long line 

outside down the hallway, and so what I would like to say, first of 

all, is that we definitely need to repeat this hearing and perhaps 

at the full committee level. So I would ask that. 

Secondly, just to begin my questions here, in terms—if you do 

want to know about the problems that we are seeing with religious 

liberty, all you have to do is go to ‘‘Clear and Present Danger.’’ It 

is an FRC [Family Research Council] Web site. There is a huge 

tabulation that has occurred over recent years. I have spoken with 

the head chaplain of the Air Force. I have made him aware of this. 

And again, I am disappointed that we don’t have General Boykin 

and others who can actually tell us about all of these problems. 

But let me say this, I feel very good about the fact that there has 

not been a single complaint or problematic complaint with proselytizing. Yet, we hear from our sectarian atheist friends that that is 
12 

a huge problem in the military, and that is the reason why we have 

to change the culture of the military. 

So if people are free to express their religious beliefs, why do we 

have a growing number of complaints? And again, I won’t go into 

those, but I would refer to that Web site, because of lack of time. 

Here is my question, Ms. Penrod, you know, last week DOD [Department of Defense] issued an instruction, 1300.17, regarding the 

accommodation of religious practices within the military services. 

Were these revisions the Department’s official response to the congressional requests in the NDAA 2013, and/or 2014? 

Ms. PENROD. Congressman, thank you for that question. The accommodation, the DODI, is the official document that includes the 

changes in law in 2013, 2014. 

Dr. FLEMING. Okay. So, in the fiscal year 2014 NDAA, language 

was included that said, quote, ‘‘In prescribing such regulations, the 

Secretary shall consult with the official military faith group representatives who endorse military chaplains,’’ end quote. Did the 

DOD comply with the fiscal year 2014 NDAA by consulting with 

the official military faith group representatives in formulating this 

instruction? 

Ms. PENROD. Well, the instruction was under revision as the law 

was being deliberated. Actually, it was pretty much completed. 

However, we had the opportunity on January 16th, to meet with 

over 100 religious endorsers. 

Dr. FLEMING. Well, I am running out of time. Just to make it 

clear, the answer to that is, no. 

Ms. PENROD. No, the answer is yes. 

Dr. FLEMING. It is no. And that is why we need more hearings, 

Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Dr. Fleming. 

Congressman Doug Lamborn of Colorado. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

You all know, I am sure, of Chaplain Dale Goetz, who died in Afghanistan. I have legislation to name a post office in his memory. 

If and when that day arrives, I would like to invite you all to help 

memorialize that occasion and to honor his memory. So please be 

aware of that. 

Chaplain Tidd, do you agree that chaplains should be free to prepare and deliver sermons or teachings according to the faith traditions of their endorsing agency without interference from a commander? 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, that is correct. That is our policy, and that is 

our practice. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And would anyone disagree with that answer he 

gave? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you. 

Chaplain Page, should chaplains be free to write public essays 

about a faith’s teaching and the tenets of their personal faith in 

particular? 

General PAGE. Absolutely. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, thank you. And would anyone disagree with 

that answer? 
13 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. For any one of you, chaplains are not only members of the Armed Forces but also representatives of faith groups 

and accountable to an endorsing agency that holds to specific faith 

tenets. If the chain of command has veto power over the content 

of religious speech in the military, would the core of the chaplaincy 

be compromised? 

Chaplain Tidd. 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, as we have discussed, it is hard for me to conceive that the chain of command would want to have veto power 

particularly over a sermon, a Bible study, teaching like that. So 

that is just not part of who we are as a military, as well as a chaplain. 

Mr. LAMBORN. And that situation would be unacceptable in your 

opinion? 

Admiral TIDD. Yes, sir. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, thank you. Should DOD policy determine in 

any way what is an acceptable body of moral or religious beliefs to 

discuss, teach, or share in the military? 

Ms. Penrod. 

Ms. PENROD. No. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Okay, thank you. 

And would anyone disagree with her answer? 

[Nonverbal response.] 

Mr. LAMBORN. Lastly, it is our understanding that additional 

regulations regarding chaplains are forthcoming. Will you commit 

to come back before the committee and discuss these regulations? 

Ms. Penrod. 

Ms. PENROD. Yes, I will. 

Mr. LAMBORN. Thank you all very much for your answers and 

thank you for being here. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Lamborn. 

We now proceed to Congressman Trent Franks of Arizona. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank all of you so much for being here. You know, it is my 

contention that those who defend our country are the most noble 

figures in society. And often, in the process of doing that, they put 

themselves at mortal risk. 

And it is also my contention that part of military efficiency and 

cohesion and capability is rooted in their own ability to have refuge 

in their own faith when they face death for all of us, and it is not 

a small issue, and it is not just a religious freedom issue. This is 

about a military capability that we protect religious freedom, and 

religious freedom goes to the very heart of who we are as a people 

and as a Nation. 

And in terms of when prayers are written by some commanding 

officer or something like that, you understand the danger that if 

we have to proscribe or prescribe any prayer to the chaplain or 

someone that has dedicated their life to a particular tenet or faith, 

it can vitiate the entire reason that they pursue this entire impetus. And I was struck by Reverend Magness’ comments and very 

respectful of it, but was struck by it. If the people had approached 

you and said, well, we are atheist and we are offended by any pray-
14 

er, would that have motivated you to say, well, we wouldn’t pray 

at all? And my question here to all of you is, when it comes to prayers that chaplains make before an official crowd or anything else, 

is there anything in the military code or anything in the practice 

of the military or anything in the anticipated regulations that 

would prohibit a prayer that—say if it is a Christian prayer, in 

Jesus’ name, like you mentioned, or if it was a Jewish prayer in 

some other way, would there be anything anticipated or anything 

in the military code that would prohibit any person officially or 

quasi officially from being able to pray in a public setting, even in 

an official setting, according to the tenets of their faith? It is a specific question. 

If it is all right, Ms. Penrod, I will talk to you and then just go 

down the line here. 

Ms. PENROD. Yes, Congressman. 

There is absolutely nothing in policy or code that prohibits a 

chaplain from praying in accordance with the dictates of their 

faith. 

Mr. FRANKS. And Chaplain Tidd, would you agree with that? 

Admiral TIDD. Yes, sir. Chaplains are always free to pray according to the manner and forms of their religious organizations. We 

also as a matter of practice understand that not every setting is a 

worship service. And so we are free to work within the parameters 

of our religious traditions to pray in a way that is meaningful for 

that particular group. 

Mr. FRANKS. But any reports of people being said that, you know, 

in the case of Reverend Magness, it was voluntary on his part, but 

any reports of anyone saying, no, you cannot pray in that way, or 

is there anything anticipated in the regulations? 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, I am not aware of that. If a chaplain feels 

that they can’t pray in a way that would be meaningful for that 

group, they always have the opportunity to respectfully withdraw 

from that with no kind of retribution. The commander is also free 

to choose any chaplain that the commander would like to offer a 

prayer. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you all very much. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Franks. 

And we now proceed to a brand new Member of Congress, Brad 

Byrne of Alabama. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Bishop Magness, I wonder if I could start with you. Just so 

you know, I am a cradle-to-grave Episcopalian and the nephew of 

an Episcopal priest who was a chaplain. And I was struck by your 

comments, and I want to make sure that we give you an opportunity to clarify if you need to. 

Many of our prayers in the ‘‘Book of Common Prayer’’ end with 

that simple statement, ‘‘In the name of the Lord Jesus Christ.’’ Do 

you feel like that there are times for you or for other chaplains 

when you feel inhibited in being able to invoke the name of Jesus 

or invoke the name of God because of a particular thing that is in 

the code or just because of a practice in the military? 

Rev. MAGNESS. Thank you for the question. 
15 

Speaking personally for myself, I never felt that I was inhibited 

in any way as a military chaplain from praying in any particular 

way, nor do I think there should be any policy that prohibits that. 

This is a matter of education and training. We train chaplains and 

continue to train chaplains, as I train our Episcopal priests, to be 

able to understand and learn and read situations, to know the distinctions between a religious service and a command function, and 

to know that in certain settings, certain things are appropriate and 

other settings they are not, that they can be offensive. 

One of the things we do in the Episcopal Church when we take 

our baptismal vows is to say that we will respect the dignity of 

every human being. I take that very seriously, and I expect my 

chaplains to take that very seriously. And I will not restrict them 

from praying in any way that they want to or need to at any particular place; yet to be mindful that they have an effect as a command leader upon the dignity of everyone who is there with them. 

Mr. BYRNE. And if you know that there is, if you are speaking 

to an audience and it includes people who happen to be Jewish, you 

know that there may be an appropriate way to state your prayer 

that is in keeping with your own faith and with their faith as well. 

Rev. MAGNESS. I believe that there are a lot of different ways to 

pray. I don’t think that from my own personal preference of the 

ending subscription, ‘‘in Jesus’ name,’’ always has to be there. In 

fact, not every prayer I pray always has that at the end. 

Mr. BYRNE. And I wonder if I could direct this to you, Ms. 

Penrod. My uncle told me, the first time I ever heard it, that there 

is no such thing as atheists in foxholes. Maybe we have them 

today, but during World War II and the aftermath of that, he didn’t 

feel that way. 

Do you think it is appropriate for our chaplains to be able to witness to the men and women in our armed services when they are 

going through these difficult times and to witness in a personal 

way, not just in some sort of an abstract way, but to personally witness to them? 

Ms. PENROD. Sir, what the Department believes is that all members have the right to practice according to the tenets of their religion or no religion. If an individual is comfortable with that, absolutely. 

Mr. BYRNE. By ‘‘any individual,’’ you mean a chaplain as well, 

not just an individual service man or woman? 

Ms. PENROD. Absolutely. And if the individual is uncomfortable 

with the chaplain praying, they can address that with the chaplain. 

Mr. BYRNE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Byrne. 

We now proceed to Congressman Rob Wittman of Virginia. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to thank our panelists for joining us today. 

Ms. Penrod, I want to begin with you. Can you give me some perspective about the Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute and what they use as a metric in communicating to units out 

in the field? And can you tell me, do they consider the Southern 

Poverty Law Center’s list of hate groups to be a reliable indicator 

of extremist groups in the United States? 
16 

Ms. PENROD. Well, Congressman, thank you for that question. 

That organization is out of the purview of my responsibilities. I will 

need to take that for the record. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay, because my concern is that as these groups 

have been identified as extremist groups, they include some religious groups, which to me is very troubling. Can you tell me if 

there are any steps in the plan that the Defense Equal Opportunity 

Management Institute puts out that determines recommended resources for EO [equal opportunity] trainers for a further study to 

look at how they identify these extremist groups and whether they 

do include religious groups that I think do intersect into the idea 

of religious freedom by identifying certain groups on a very subjective basis, and how that is communicated out to the field with the 

EO trainers? 

Ms. PENROD. Again, Congressman, I would need to get the specifics for you, so I will take that for the record. 

[The information referred to can be found in the Appendix on 

page 147.] 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay. Let me ask you, this was specific to the 

Army and how the Army was communicating as to whether certain 

religious groups were extremist groups. Has the Army made any 

changes to training or anything that they are doing as far as identifying religious groups as extremist groups and how they train 

their men and women? 

Ms. PENROD. I will defer to Chaplain Bailey. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Chaplain Bailey. 

General BAILEY. Yes, sir, thank you. They have stopped all training and revised the training packets to ensure that all of the information is correct. This that you are talking about was an isolated 

case in which information was brought in from on outside source. 

It was a mistake, and it was quickly corrected at the time. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay, so that has been corrected. I understand 

that those training courses were stopped in order for this to be considered. So what you are saying is, changes have been made. Are 

the new training courses now being reinstituted? Are trainers now 

continuing with that EO training based on a new directive from the 

Army? 

General BAILEY. Sir, it is outside of my perimeter of information. 

However, I understand that they have stopped that. They have got 

better information in, and they are starting the training back up 

again with the correct information. 

Mr. WITTMAN. Okay, very good. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Wittman. 

We now proceed to a very proud military dad, Congressman Rich 

Nugent of Florida. 

Mr. NUGENT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I certainly do thank our chaplains for your service to this 

country and particularly to our service members. You know, much 

has been made about our military’s role in religion, and there are 

those who argue it is the responsibility of the military to promote 

religious values, specifically, Christian values. Others argue it is 

the responsibility of the military to create a purely secular environ-
17 

ment, where no person would ever be exposed to religious beliefs 

or challenge—that challenge their own. 

I am the father of three sons currently serving in the United 

States Army, and I am a Christian. I believe it is the military’s responsibility to provide for the spiritual needs of warfighters of any 

faith. The dedicated chaplains and support assistants meet that 

need everywhere our armed services are in the world. 

Would you please confirm with me, or confirm to me the military’s level of commitment to religious need of all personnel while 

validating the following facts: The Air Force had 2,472 chaplains 

and 3,344 enlisted assistants who have served since the program 

was created in 1975; 1,870 chaplains and assistants currently serve 

today in the Air Force. Two died while deployed. Navy, total number of chaplains could not be found, but the largest the chaplain 

corps has ever been was 1,487 serving during the same time during 

World War II. Today, 2,042 chaplains and assistants serve currently. Fifteen chaplains died while deployed, and two chaplains received the Medal of Honor. In the Army, more than 25,000 chaplains and assistants have served in the Army; 6,400 chaplains and 

assistants currently serve. Three hundred have died while deployed, and six chaplains received a Medal of Honor. 

I just want to make sure that the commitment of the armed services is to provide for that spiritual need of any service member 

within any of the organizations. Does that commitment still stand 

today? I think by the numbers, would you agree with those numbers? And I know you may not know specifically the numbers, but 

in general terms. 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, I would say for the Navy, that is roughly 

right, and I would have to check on the specifics; but absolutely, 

our commitment is strong to honoring the religious and spiritual 

values of our people and supporting religious and spiritual values 

of all of our people. 

Mr. NUGENT. It is not just spiritual values, I would think, from 

my time when I was in basic training, and my sons, who currently 

serve; it really is to minister to any. It matters not if they have a 

religious affiliation. They are there as a counselor and a shoulder 

to lean on and talk to get help if necessary. And so I do appreciate 

all that the chaplains do. It is a huge service to this country, and 

to our warfighters, and please continue. 

I yield back. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Nugent. 

We now proceed to Congressman Mike Rogers of Alabama. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Penrod, late last year, I had a young woman in my district 

go to a VA hospital down near Montgomery, Alabama. The young 

woman made homemade cookies and packaged them up to take to 

the VA Hospital, a couple of hundred packages to give to some of 

the veterans in the hospital in honor of her late grandfather. But 

when she arrived at the VA hospital, she was denied the ability to 

hand out those cookies because the packaging had the word 

‘‘Christmas’’ on it. 

While this incident occurred in a VA hospital, I am curious if it 

had been a DOD facility, do you all have a policy that would prevent somebody from doing something for our men and women in 
18 

service if the word ‘‘Christmas’’ or ‘‘Hanukkah’’ or whatever was on 

the packaging. 

Ms. PENROD. We do not have such a policy. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thanks. 

On another subject, current DOD policy states that service members can share their faith or evangelize but must not force unwanted intrusive attempts to convert others of any faith or no faith 

to one’s beliefs. My question is, who makes the determination of 

the relative comfort of others, and what is the practical application 

of that policy? 

Ms. PENROD. I will defer to our chiefs of chaplains. 

Admiral TIDD. Sir, as we share our faith, as service members 

share our faith, we are always open to do that. It is always an option for us to do that and to do so respectfully and gracefully. And 

that is something that is worked out between the individuals. If an 

individual says, ‘‘Thanks, I am not interested,’’ that is an appropriate time for the other person to step back. If they say, ‘‘I would 

like to hear more about that,’’ then, absolutely, we continue. 

Mr. ROGERS. All right, thank you. 

That is all I have. 

I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you very much, Congressman Rogers. 

We now proceed to Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Last week, the DOD issued an instruction indicating that it’s 

DOD policy that religious expression of service members should be 

accommodated as reiterated in the NDAA, and of course, the intent 

is that expression is not just a belief, but it is also in practice. So 

my question is, can—and I guess I will start with General Bailey— 

can you give me examples of an expression of religious belief, 

whether verbal or nonverbal, that is considered to be borderline inappropriate? 

General BAILEY. Thank you, ma’am. I would think that a statement that would indicate that their religious beliefs are better or 

more—have more importance than another belief system and how 

they would phrase something like that and state that in some sort 

of way, that their god or their higher being, that they—who they 

call would be something that is the supreme over anything else, 

where maybe that would suppress another individual to think that 

they are not less in their faith, that would be a wrong statement 

to make in that sense. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. Here is an example. So the respectful expression 

of an individual’s conscious or religious belief while engaging in 

personal conversation in public space would be considered inappropriate. So if you said, you know, I believe I am a Christian because 

of this reason, and it—that would entail as a faith that you believe 

he is the Son of God and all of that. So you couldn’t get into that 

without reprimand? 

General BAILEY. No, ma’am. That is perfectly okay for that individual to state what they believe openly, understanding who is 

around the area; that is a private conversation within their own 

convictions of what they believe. When it is in conflict with those 

around, that is denouncing them or intruding on them, then there 

is a sensitivity there that we have to help that individual under-
19 

stand through training and through other means like that. But 

they are never told they cannot share their own personal faith of 

any sort. 

What we try to do, though, for the discipline purposes, is to understand that every faith has to be respected and dignified as well 

as those who have no faith whatsoever. So you must state your 

faith in a sense that, and hopefully they will, in a sense of that respect, but never suppressed in any sort of way. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. I think that is a fine line, but it is important to 

be sensitive to others, but I just hope through your training, it 

doesn’t result in suppression of that because that is very important. 

How about an invitation from one service member to another to 

attend a Bible study or other religious function? Would that be inappropriate? 

General BAILEY. No, ma’am, not whatsoever. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. A religious text or symbol that is visible in a 

commanding officer’s office? 

General BAILEY. No, ma’am. A commanding officer can have 

whatever he has on his desk, a Bible, or a Quran, or whatever it 

may be. That is up to him. That is his individual conviction whatever it may be. 

However, the chaplain, that is what our role is to advise the commander of the impact that would have or possibly any repercussions of that. The commander will make a wise decision at that 

point, understanding his or her role as a leader of all faiths in regard to religious accommodation or a lack of faith, whatever it may 

be, of the choices of the service members they lead. So that will be 

their individual right. 

Mrs. HARTZLER. All right, thank you. My time is up. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Ms. Hartzler. 

We now proceed to Congressman Tim Huelskamp of Kansas. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I certainly appreciate the ability to be here today. Appreciate the 

leadership of many on this committee. 

First question I would have, and I believe one of the colleagues 

here had asked, all of the above, in terms of sermons, whether or 

not folks should be able to preach, chaplains preach what they believe in a particular homily or sermon. And perhaps for the Right 

Reverend, are there any cases in which military has censored in 

advance anything you anticipated to preach? 

Rev. MAGNESS. Neither has that been the case in my experience 

nor has it been the case with any of my chaplains who serve 

around this globe in all the services. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. And as I understand from the others, that was 

a pretty firm commitment that that doesn’t happen. 

But one instance I would like to refer to that I was worried 

about. And I believe General Bailey might be able to address this. 

January of 2012, every Catholic chaplain in the Army was forbidden to use one particular sentence in a sermon that every other 

Catholic across the country was allowed to hear. Do you not consider that censorship? And exactly can you describe how that decision was made by which that was a forbidden sentence in our—to 

be uttered by our Catholic chaplains? 
20 

General BAILEY. Yes, sir, thank you very much. At the time, if 

I believe, the endorsing agency for the Roman Catholic Church, a 

bishop had put out a letter to all to be read and sermonized and 

to all the Roman Catholic services throughout the military, the Department of Defense at that time. Our chief of chaplains at that 

time went to our Judge Advocate General, screening that letter as 

properly to be done to look at to make sure that it was in good 

order and discipline, that it would go against the chain of command, things of this nature that we are supposed to do to ensure 

that we do say the right things in that regard. And so through that 

means and through that mechanism, the one sentence that was 

said would be misconstrued and possibly from the judicial perspective in that sense from the chain of command, that information was 

fed back to the Roman Catholic Church to understand that that 

would not be. In fact, the Roman Catholic endorser met with the 

Secretary of the Army over that issue, and they discussed it, and 

it was agreed to that it was not to be used, as well as that every— 

the letter be read by everyone Catholic priest to the congregates in 

the sense that they all know what is being said by their endorser. 

So all the information was let out to the people. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Sir, the last sentence, not all information, the 

one sentence was stricken in every Catholic chaplain’s homily in 

every military base in this country, as I understand. Do you not 

think that is censorship? 

General BAILEY. No, sir, I don’t. What I do believe is that we 

worked with the bishop’s office to understand that that one sentence was not the intent of the bishop, what he was trying to say. 

And because the culture of the military being misconstrued against 

the President, against all what was going on at that time. 

Mr. HUELSKAMP. Sir, in my definition of censorship, when the 

government demands something not be said and forces that— 

again, every Catholic in America heard that one sentence unless 

you were in an Army installation at a Catholic mass. So I am very 

frustrated by that, frustrated by your response. And the fact is I 

believe that is censorship. And I would love to discuss at length 

why that sentence was problematic to you and not problematic to 

every other Catholic in this country. 

And I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Mr. Huelskamp. 

As we proceed, votes have been called. 

But fortunately, we have time for our last Member. I am delighted the number of persons who are here. 

And, Dr. Fleming, I agree with you that this issue is so important, we will be having another hearing, and it would fit right into 

when the companion regulations are released within the next 60 

days. So this shall occur. 

And thank you again, Dr. Fleming, for your passion on this issue. 

We will be concluding with Congressman Alan Nunnelee of Mississippi. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for having this hearing and for allowing me, a nonmember of the committee, to be part of it. 

Ms. Penrod, I want to follow up with a line of questions from Mr. 

Wittman specifically concerning the equal opportunity that—the 
21 

Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute. Mr. Wittman’s 

questions were asked, and we get the same answer we continually 

get, and that is this is an isolated incident; it will not happen 

again. And then it happens again. 

Just a quick chronology of a couple of events. April of 2013, a 

Pennsylvania Army Reserve unit: Evangelical Christians are examples of religious extremists; Catholics are equated to the Ku Klux 

Klan, Al Qaeda, and Hamas. Fall of 2013, Fort Hood, same institute: Christians are a threat to the Nation and any soldier that donates to these groups will be subject to punishment under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. October of 2013, similar statements 

at Camp Shelby. December of 2013, soldiers were told, don’t use 

the word ‘‘Christmas.’’ Might be offensive. Army’s investigated 

these. What is the purpose of these equal opportunity briefings? 

Who thought it was a good idea to have these briefings? And what 

has been done to those that made the decision to have such briefings? 

Ms. PENROD. Well, Congressman, again, I do not have the specifics of those cases. I will need to get that for the record for you. 

Mr. NUNNELEE. Mr. Chairman, if we could have a follow-up hearing and have representatives from this Department of Defense 

Equal Opportunity Management Institute, I think it would be most 

helpful. 

Mr. WILSON. Thank you, Congressman Nunnelee. 

And as we proceed with the additional hearing, any suggestions 

anyone has, please let me know. 

Ms. Davis, do you have any concluding comments? 

Again, thank you all for being here. I think you can see the intelligence and appreciation of chaplains. That is why—you had a 

record turnout in terms of Members of Congress who came who are 

profoundly and very positively concerned but also supportive of our 

chaplains in the U.S. military. We are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 10:34 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

A P P E N D I X 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

(27) 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 

DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

(57) 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
WITNESS RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS ASKED DURING 

THE HEARING 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

(147) 

RESPONSE TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. WITTMAN 

Ms. PENROD. DEOMI’s website, www.deomi.org, is a wealth of educational, training, and research material for Equal Opportunity and Equal Employment Opportunity practitioners assigned throughout the Department of Defense. The programming of the site allows a usage report to be generated that indicates the traffic flow 

to each page and the number of training products downloaded from the site. 

The site includes a wide selection of relevant human relations Advanced Distributed Learning (ADL) lessons online that anybody can take, anytime, from anywhere. 

In addition, DEOMI’s website is where the Department will house standardized 

training template lessons on various human relations topics. These templates may 

be downloaded for use and will be accompanied by usage instructions provided by 

the Office of Diversity Management and Equal Opportunity. The availability of 

these standardized lesson templates will be communicated to the Services and Department as they become available through various established DOD communicating vehicles. The template topics include: 

• Handling Dissident & Protest Activities 

• Religious Accommodation 

• Sexual Harassment 

• Bystander Intervention 

• Communicating Across Differences 

• Prejudice & Discrimination 

• Cultural Awareness 

DEOMI does not endorse the SPLC, or its list of hate groups, nor does DEOMI 

curriculum currently use any sources of information from the SPLC. In addition, 

DOD does not publish a list of hate groups. 

The DOD does not recognize or endorse any list of extremist or hate groups. EO 

practitioners will have access to the DOD-approved standardized templates based 

on the policy outlined in Department of Defense Instruction 1325.06, November 27, 

2009, ‘‘Handling Dissident and Protest Activities Among Members of the Armed 

Forces.’’ [See page 16.] 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS POST HEARING 

JANUARY 29, 2014 

(151) 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MS. TSONGAS 

Ms. TSONGAS. Since 2009, the U.S. Army has allowed three Sikh soldiers to wear 

turbans and maintain unshorn hair and beards as required by the Sikh religion. It 

is my understanding that under the Department’s new religious accommodation 

guidelines, service members will need to request individual waivers on a case-bycase basis for each new assignment. Will Sikh service members have to remove their 

turbans, cut their hair, and shave their beards while their accommodation requests 

are pending? 

Ms. PENROD. The Army has enlisted or appointed several Soldiers in recent years 

that have been granted exceptions to uniform and grooming policy. Each of these 

requests was considered on a case by case basis. In August 2013, the Army DSC, 

G–1 granted exceptions/waivers for six soldiers; three soldiers of the Sikh faith for 

their beards, unshorn hair and turbans and three soldiers of the Jewish faith for 

their beards. These accommodation waivers are valid for the length of these soldiers’ 

military service. 

However, Service members who are now granted an accommodation waiver retain 

it according to the specific elements of the respective Service approval. Upon significant changes in a Service member’s duty (such as new assignment, transfer of duty 

station, deployment), at the discretion of the Secretary concerned, continuance of an 

approved accommodation must be requested. This initial approved accommodation 

remains in effect during the continuance re-evaluation process. DOD policy clearly 

supports accommodation in that it directs the Secretaries of the Military Department to disapprove cases only when there is a compelling governmental interest. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. HECK 

Dr. HECK. Does the DOD currently have a presumptive ban on Sikhs displaying 

their articles of faith to include wearing of their religiously mandated turban and 

unshorn hair and beard? 

Ms. PENROD. There is no presumptive ban in DOD-level policy. Military personnel 

may request accommodation of individual expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs and each such request is determined by the respective Service on a case-bycase basis. 

Dr. HECK. While attending IET, are Sikhs required to give up turbans and shave 

their beards while they are awaiting a religious accommodation waiver? If a waiver 

is not granted and the Sikh refuses to shave or give up their turban, will they be 

processed for separation? And if so under what conditions? 

Ms. PENROD. While preparing our response, we determined that the Services have 

differing policies regarding approval of religious accommodations during the enlistment process. We are currently reviewing those policies and recruiting practices 

with the Services. 

Dr. HECK. During the hearing, Ms. Penrod suggested that a religious accommodation waiver was necessary with each new duty assignment in order to consider potential health and safety issues that may arise with each new unit or assignment. 

However, assuming that a Sikh is provided a religious accommodation while in IET 

and completes all training, to include MOPP training (properly fitting and sealing 

of a gas mask), what other health and safety issues are anticipated that necessitate 

a reconsideration of a religious accommodation waiver? 

Ms. PENROD. DOD anticipates that some career fields, such as aircraft maintenance on flight lines, would be included as health and safety issues. Length of hair/ 

beard could be a concern when in close proximity to moving components. Headgear 

may be excluded on flight line due to a potential foreign object damage (FOD) hazard. Even though turban headgear is permitted, it is excluded on the flight-line. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY DR. FLEMING 

Dr. FLEMING. Section 533(b) of the FY2014 NDAA says, ‘‘In prescribing such regulations, the Secretary shall consult with the official military faith-group representa-
152 

tives who endorse military chaplains.’’ While testifying before the committee on January 29, 2014, Ms. Penrod indicated that the DOD was in compliance with the law 

in issuing the DODI 1300.17 as the official response to the FY2013 and FY2014 

NDAA. 

Ms. PENROD. Yes, the Department is in compliance with the law. 

Dr. FLEMING. Could the DOD please provide the dates, times, names of the groups 

the DOD met with, topics discussed, and other pertinent details regarding any such 

meetings DOD had with official military faith-group representatives in revising the 

1300.17 DODI? 

Ms. PENROD. The revision of Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military Departments was briefed during the 

2013 Armed Forces Chaplains (AFCB) Board Endorsers Conference. At the January 

16, 2014 AFCB Conference, attendees were offered the opportunity to present their 

concerns to a panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of Military and Personnel Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains. 

Topics discussed included: the status of Chaplain Corps ministry in a pluralistic 

environment; strategic plans for communication with endorsers; the accession and 

retention of chaplains; and the support and protection of religious freedoms. 

American Baptist Home Mission 

Societies 

American Council of Christian Churches 

Anglican Church in America, The 

Assemblies of God, General Council of 

Assembly of Canonical Orthodox Bishops 

in North America 

Associated Gospel Churches 

Bible Fellowship Church (NAE) 

Calvary Baptist Church (All Points 

Baptist Mission) 

Calvary Chapel of Costa Mesa 

Central Conference of American Rabbis 

(JWB) 

Chaplaincy Full Gospel Churches 

Christian and Missionary Alliance, The 

Christian Church (Disciples of Christ) 

Christian Churches and Churches of 

Christ 

Church of God (Cleveland, Tennessee) 

(NAE) 

Church of God Ministries 

Church of God of Prophecy 

Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day 

Saints, The (LDS) 

Church of Lutheran Brethren 

Church of the Nazarene 

Coalition of Spirit-Filled Churches Inc. 

Congregational Methodist Church, The 

Conservative Baptist Association of 

America (NAE) 

Convocation of Anglicans in North 

America, The (CANA/ACNA) 

Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, Inc 

Episcopal Missionary Church 

Evangelical Congregational Church 

Evangelical Lutheran Conference & 

Ministerium 

Federated Orthodox Catholic Churches 

International 

First Baptist Church of Kingstowne 

Free Methodist Church—USA 

Full Gospel Fellowship of Churches and 

Ministers International 

Fundamental Baptist Fellowship Int’l 

(John Vaughn is the endorser) 

Grace Brethern Churchs, The Fellowship 

of 

Grace Churches Interational 

International Christian Church (CFGC) 

International Church of the Foursquare 

Gospel 

National Assoc Council Armed Forces 

National Association of Evangelicals 

North American Mission Board (SBC) 

Orthodox Anglican Church 

Orthodox Church in America 

Plymouth Brethren 

Presbyterian and Reformed Commision 

on Chaplains and Military Personnel 

Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.), The 

Regular Baptist Churches 

Russian Orthodox Church Outside 

Russia 

Unitarian Universalist Association, The 

United Church of Christ 

United Methodist Church, The 

United Pentecostal Church International 

Dr. FLEMING. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014, meeting with 

over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence for DOD compliance with 

the above-mentioned requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of 

the January 16th meeting, however, is that this was an annual meeting at which 

the DODI 1300.17 was not discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith 

group representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16 meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of, puts the DOD in 

compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. 

Ms. PENROD. A panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of Military and Personnel 

Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains consulted with 132 official military faithgroup representatives from over 50 faith group religious organizations and solicited 

their views concerning the pending changes in policy. 

All recommendations from these official military faith-group representatives received before, during and after the conference were considered in the revision of 
153 

DODI 1304.28 which pertains to the guidance for the appointment of chaplains and 

1300.17, even though no specific issues concerning the latter were expressed by faith 

group representatives. 

Dr. FLEMING. Please clarify the input official military faith-group representatives 

provided the DOD as it revised the 1300.17 DODI, including examples of the input 

provided, an explanation of where in the revised DODI such input is reflected, and 

a description of the process used in incorporating such input into the revised DODI. 

Ms. PENROD. The revision of Department of Defense Instruction 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military Departments was briefed during the 

2013 Armed Forces Chaplains Board Endorsers Conference As part of the registration process for the 2014 Armed Forces Chaplains Board Endorsers Conference, official military faith-group representatives were offered the opportunity to submit any 

concerns or questions regarding religious issues. They were also offered the opportunity to present their concerns during the panel discussion during the conference. 

All inputs received from them prior to and during the 2014 conference regarded 

chaplains and did not directly apply to DODI 1300.17. 

Dr. FLEMING. DOD has indicated that DODI 1304.28 regarding chaplains is currently under review and that the revised DODI will incorporate section 533(b), the 

consultation requirement. Please explain the process DOD will be using to gather 

the input of official military faith-group representatives and how it will be incorporating such input into the 1304.28 DODI. 

Ms. PENROD. DODI 1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains for the 

Services, provides specific guidance for chaplains. All input received from official 

military faith-group representatives regarding chaplains, that was received before, 

during or after the 2014 Armed Forces Chaplains Board Military Chaplain Endorser 

Conference, were considered in the revision to DODI 1300.28. 

Dr. FLEMING. The 1300.17 DODI reads that: ‘‘The DOD places a high value on 

the rights of members of the Military Services to observe the tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all.’’ It also explains the process for a religious accommodation request. Does the Department consider an atheist or humanist 

request as a legitimate religious accommodation request as defined by the 1300.17 

DODI? Please describe how the 1300.17 DODI is able to accommodate the requests 

filed for those who do not profess any faith, while simultaneously protecting the religious freedom of chaplains and service members who express religious beliefs 

through speech and practice, on or off duty. 

Ms. PENROD. Department of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17, Accommodation 

of Religious Practices in the Military Departments, does not include guidance for 

non-religious requests for accommodation. Non-religious requests for accommodation 

are processed through the chain of command in accordance with the standard for 

what is religious as defined in DODI 1300.06, Conscientious Objectors. 

Dr. FLEMING. Religious expression includes more than just an outward display of 

clothing, certain grooming practices, or dress; yet, the 1300.17 revised DODI appears to largely focus on religious accommodation for specific clothing or jewelry displayed on one’s person. While I appreciate that the Department is taking a close 

look at these apparel regulations, this Instruction does not address the censorship 

of religious speech and fear of reprisal for such speech that the FY13 and FY14 

NDAA intended to address. Please explain where in this revised DODI protection 

is provided for a service member’s freedom to discuss, explain, mention, and reference their specific faith tenets either in private or in public while completing an 

official military duty or more broadly as a member of the armed services, as intended by the FY13 and FY14 NDAA? 

Ms. PENROD. The most recent publication of Department of Defense Instruction 

(DODI) 1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military Departments, 

paragraph 4b, protects this freedom for all Service members and DODI 1304.28, 

Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains, paragraphs 5.2.1 and 5.2.2, specifically 

expands this protection to chaplains while performing their official duties according 

to the tenets of their faith. 

Dr. FLEMING. The intent of Congress in the FY13 and FY14 NDAA was not that 

religious expression through speech and practice be subject to a request for accommodation, rather that the default position for DOD policy should afford respect for 

religious expression and religious practice by service members. The reported incidents of censoring speech and religious practice are a DOD problem, not the burden 

of service members to prove why they should be able to speak or honor their faith 

both within and outside a chaplain service. The revised 1300.17 DODI further clarifies the process for seeking religious accommodation on matters pertaining to dress 

and grooming. Is it DOD policy that other aspects of religious expression such as 

religious or moral speech must also be submitted in a request for accommodation? 

If so, why? 
154 

Ms. PENROD. No, a request for accommodation for religious or moral speech is not 

required. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of all speech to include religious or moral speech and Title 10, Chapter 47, Uniform Code of Military Justice, 

Subchapter 10—Punitive Articles defines the parameters associated with inappropriate speech and actions that threaten good order and discipline. 

Dr. FLEMING. In the Department’s revisions to the 1300.17 DODI, you chose to 

define ‘‘substantial burden’’ in a way that forces commanders to make theological 

judgments about the importance of service member’s religious practices. Courts have 

overwhelmingly rejected this approach noting that government officials lack both 

authority and competence to make such judgments. DOD’s definition of ‘‘substantial 

burden’’ runs contrary to Religious Freedom Restoration Act and the Free Exercise 

and Establishment Clauses of the First Amendment. The definition will both limit 

service members’ liberty and invite litigation. Can the DOD explain why this definition was rewritten rather than adopting the standard that has been favored by the 

courts and has protected religious liberty for all Americans for two decades? 

Ms. PENROD. Congress used the term ‘‘substantially burden’’ in enacting the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Congress did not define the term nor has 

it done so since enactment. The department’s definition of ‘‘substantially burden’’ attempts to give a reasonable interpretation of the term consistent with court opinions. It is possible that the Supreme Court may provide more definitive guidance 

when it decides Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making 

sure that all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported, including explanations of corrective actions taken. 

Ms. PENROD. There are multiple avenues (e.g. Chain of Command, Chaplains, 

Military Equal Opportunity, Inspector General) of recourse for individual Service 

members who believe their religious liberty is being limited. Attached are the facts 

associated with incidents alleged in the Family Research Council, ‘‘Clear and 

Present Danger’’ report. As you can see from the facts provided, Service leaders 

champion the protection of religious liberty for all Service members. 

Dr. FLEMING. Recent media reports and testimony from outside organizations 

point toward a trend of a work environment that is hostile against religious expression within the military. What has the Department done to ensure that service 

members are fully aware of their rights under the First Amendment to express religious beliefs without fear of career reprisals, censorship, reprimands, or action being 

taken against them under the UCMJ? 

Ms. PENROD. The Department published Department of Defense Instructions 

1300.17, Accommodation of Religious Practices in the Military Departments, and 

1304.28, Guidance for the Appointment of Chaplains, both of which include language regarding individual expressions of religious beliefs. The Military Departments are updating their Service regulations and policies to implement this guidance. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. As an example, LTC Kenneth Reyes 

posted an article on the history and context of the phrase ‘‘No atheists in foxholes’’ 

on the Chaplains Corner blog at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The article was 

initially removed from the blog, only later to be reinstated. Please provide the facts 

surrounding this incident and describe the process used in reviewing this case. In 

addition, please provide an explanation of the corrective action taken. Was there an 

acknowledgement from commanders that taking down this blog post was a violation 

of the First Amendment? 

Ms. PENROD. Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER) Wing Chaplain, Lt Col 

Kenneth Reyes, wrote an article for the ‘‘Chaplain’s Corner’’ feature of the base 

newspaper entitled ‘‘No atheists in foxholes: Chaplains gave all in World War II.’’ 

The article was posted on the official base web page on July 17, 2013, and distributed on base via newspaper on July 19, 2013. 

On July 23, the 673d Air Base Wing Commander received a complaint regarding 

the article. In order to ensure the appropriate balance between the author’s free exercise of religion and the prohibition against government establishment of religion, 

the Commander directed the article be removed for review. After reviewing the article, the Commander had the article re-posted on the web page. A disclaimer was 

added to the web page in order to communicate that all ‘‘Chaplain’s Corner’’ fea-
155 

tured articles are those of the author and are not endorsed by the government. The 

‘‘Chaplain’s Corner’’ continues to be a weekly part of the JBER web page. 

Dr. FLEMING. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014, meeting with 

over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence for DOD compliance with 

the above-mentioned requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of 

the January 16th meeting, however, is that this was an annual meeting at which 

the DODI 1300.17 was not discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith 

group representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16 meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of, puts the DOD in 

compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. 

Admiral TIDD. During the January 16, 2014 meeting, I attended as the Navy 

Chief of Chaplains and was one of several panel members from the Department of 

Defense who discussed a range of topics with representatives of various faith 

groups. However, I respectfully defer to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on 

explaining how the Department of Defense fulfilled its obligations under the FY2014 

NDAA. My personal observation after nearly five years as the Deputy Chief of 

Chaplains and the Chief of Chaplains, including 18 months as the chair of the 

Armed Forces Chaplains Board, is that we have a collegial relationship with the ecclesiastical endorsing agents representing our chaplains and that we have had open 

and productive discussions on religious liberty issues with them. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making 

sure that all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported, including explanations of corrective actions taken. 

Admiral TIDD. The investigative approach to any given allegation will generally 

be driven by the particular facts at issue. For example, some religious liberty matters may be categorized as equal opportunity issues addressed under the Department of Navy’s equal opportunity policy or through the complaint of wrongs process. 

Alternatively, a complaint regarding religious liberty dealing with abuse of command authority might be addressed through a command investigation, through the 

Navy Inspector General, or, if criminal wrongdoing is alleged or suspected, through 

the Naval Criminal Investigative Service, depending on the facts of the complaint. 

With regard to Navy chaplains, on September 27, 2013, I provided written guidance reminding Navy chaplains that they may contact their senior supervisory chaplains, the Chief of Chaplains office, or their respective ecclesiastical endorsing 

agents (who have direct access to the Chief of Chaplains), if they feel that they are 

being required to act in a manner contrary to the tenets of their religious organizations. On October 3, 2013, I provided a copy of that letter to the ecclesiastical endorsing agents. Additionally, at numerous training venues (attended by over 60% of 

Navy chaplains), my deputy and I have discussed options for resolving religious liberty concerns. 

Dr. FLEMING. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014, meeting with 

over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence for DOD compliance with 

the above-mentioned requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of 

the January 16th meeting, however, is that this was an annual meeting at which 

the DODI 1300.17 was not discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith 

group representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16 meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of, puts the DOD in 

compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. 

General BAILEY. (BG) Bailey was not in attendance at the meeting with Endorsers 

on January 16, 2014 and therefore is unable to comment on the event. The event 

was sponsored and facilitated by the Armed Forces Chaplain Board, which falls 

under the Office of the Secretary of Defense. We are not aware of any other consultations where this issue may have been addressed. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making 

sure that all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported, including explanations of corrective actions taken. 

General BAILEY. The Army Office of the Chief of Chaplains routinely monitors the 

media for reports that are relevant to the Chaplain Corps. If the Chief of Chaplains 
156 

becomes aware of media reports of challenges to or violations of religious liberty, 

religious expression, or religious accommodation, he informs key Army leaders and 

staff, and requests more information from the installation or unit involved to confirm or deny the report and determine if any action is required from the Chaplain 

Corps. Commanders are responsible for investigating and responding to any credible 

reports of misconduct. Pertinent facts and explanations of reported incidents can be 

provided on a case-by-case basis. 

Dr. FLEMING. While testifying, Ms. Penrod cited a January 16, 2014, meeting with 

over 100 military faith group representatives as evidence for DOD compliance with 

the above-mentioned requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. My understanding of 

the January 16th meeting, however, is that this was an annual meeting at which 

the DODI 1300.17 was not discussed nor did the DOD request the input of the faith 

group representatives in attendance. Please clarify as to how the January 16 meeting, or any other consultations the committee should be aware of, puts the DOD in 

compliance with the requirement within the FY2014 NDAA. 

General PAGE. A panel consisting of the Principal Deputy of Military and Personnel Policy and the Service Chiefs of Chaplains consulted with 132 official military faith-group representatives from over 50 faith group religious organizations and 

solicited their views concerning the pending changes in policy. 

All recommendations from these official military faith-group representatives received before, during and after the conference were considered in the revision of 

DODI 1304.28 which pertains to the guidance for the appointment of chaplains and 

1300.17, even though no specific issues concerning the latter were expressed by faith 

group representatives. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. Please describe the process used in reviewing the types of cases being reported in the media. How is the DOD making 

sure that all relevant facts are being reported up the chain of command? Please provide members of the House Armed Services Committee with pertinent facts and explanations of some of the incidents being reported, including explanations of corrective actions taken. 

General PAGE. There are multiple avenues (e.g. Chain of Command, Chaplains, 

Military Equal Opportunity, Inspector General) of recourse for individual Service 

members who believe their religious liberty is being limited. Attached are the facts 

associated with incidents alleged in the Family Research Council, ‘‘Clear and 

Present Danger’’ report. As you can see from the facts provided, Service leaders 

champion the protection of religious liberty for all Service members. 

Dr. FLEMING. A number of media reports have indicated that the religious liberty 

of service members is being stifled within the services, yet the DOD and the various 

services have denied that a problem exists. As an example, LTC Kenneth Reyes 

posted an article on the history and context of the phrase ‘‘No atheists in foxholes’’ 

on the Chaplains Corner blog at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson. The article was 

initially removed from the blog, only later to be reinstated. Please provide the facts 

surrounding this incident and describe the process used in reviewing this case. In 

addition, please provide an explanation of the corrective action taken. Was there an 

acknowledgement from commanders that taking down this blog post was a violation 

of the First Amendment? 

General PAGE. Chaplain, Lt Colonel, Ken Reyes, Wing Chaplain at Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson (JBER), wrote an article entitled ‘‘No atheists in foxholes: 

Chaplains gave all in World War II’’, which was printed in the base newspaper, 

‘‘The Arctic Warrior,’’ and distributed on July 19, 2013. The same article was posted 

on the JBER web page on July 17, 2013, in the ‘‘Chaplain’s Corner’’ section. The 

wing commander directed that the article be removed from the website for review 

after receiving a complaint regarding the article. The wing commander reviewed the 

content of the article because at that time all information published on the JBER 

official web page implied the approval and endorsement of the wing commander. 

The wing commander wanted to ensure the information on the web page was balanced appropriately between the author’s free exercise of religion and the possible 

appearance of the wing commander endorsing a religion. 

After thorough review, the wing commander had the article re-posted to the web 

page with the following disclaimer: 

‘‘The ‘Chaplain’s Corner’ offers perspectives to enhance spiritual/religious resiliency in support of Air Force and Army Comprehensive Fitness programs. Comments regarding specific beliefs, practices, or behaviors are strictly those of the author and do not convey endorsement by the U.S. Government, the Department of 

Defense, the Army, the Air Force, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, or the 673d Air 
157 

Base Wing.’’ The ‘‘Chaplain’s Corner’’ continues to be a weekly part of the JBER web 

page. 

Following this event, the Air Force Chief of Staff (CSAF) directed the Chief of 

Chaplains to prepare a card to help commanders make a more deliberate response 

to complaints from outside groups and prevent ‘‘knee-jerk’’ reactions. This card was 

sent to commanders on December 11, 2013, and is briefed to every wing and group 

commander course. CSAF also directed the creation of a ‘‘help line’’ commanders can 

call, if needed, to get answers directly from Air Staff on religious freedom questions. 

The card provides a checklist and a direct line to a team of chaplains and JAGs 

who are prepared to answer their questions. It has been well-received by commanders. 

In addition, the ‘‘Religious Freedom Focus Day’’ hosted by the CSAF, provided recommendations to the CSAF in four areas: 1) policy, 2) educating the force, 3) handling complaints, 4) strategic messaging. These recommendations were approved by 

the CSAF and assigned to Offices of Responsibility with suspense dates not later 

than July 1. 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED BY MR. FORBES 

Mr. FORBES. The conscience protections as passed by Congress in § 533 of the 

NDAA for FY 2013 and amended in the NDAA for FY 2014 read: 

Unless it could have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, and 

good order and discipline, the Armed Forces shall accommodate individual expressions of belief of a member of the armed forces reflecting the sincerely held conscience, moral principles, or religious beliefs of the member and, in so far as practicable, may not use such beliefs use such expression of belief as the basis of any 

adverse personnel action, discrimination, or denial of promotion, schooling, training, 

or assignment. 

Under current military policy, what meaning, if any, is ascribed to the following 

phrases: ‘‘adverse impact,’’ ‘‘military readiness,’’ ‘‘unit cohesion,’’ ‘‘good order and discipline.’’ 

Ms. PENROD. Congress chose not to define these terms when it enacted, and 

amended, section 533. Similarly, these terms are not specifically defined in DODI 

1300.17. The Department of Defense takes very seriously its responsibility to safeguard the First Amendment rights of all military personnel. We strive to provide 

accommodations for requests of individual expressions of sincerely held religious beliefs, to include accommodations associated with grooming standards, religious apparel, worship practices, and accommodation of dietary and medical practices, unless such accommodation would have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit 

cohesion, and good order and discipline. In general, ‘‘adverse impact’’ means having 

a negative effect on something, ‘‘military readiness’’ means the ability of military 

forces to fight and also to meet demands of all assigned missions, ‘‘unit cohesion’’ 

means the relationship among members of a unit that results in the measure of the 

units efforts being greater than the sum of the efforts of each individual in the unit, 

and ‘‘good order in discipline’’ means that the members of a unit comply with all 

orders, rules, policies, etc. in an acceptable manner. 

Mr. FORBES. Did President Obama’s signing statement, made on January 3, 2013, 

on the passage of the NDAA for FY 2013 calling the conscience protections unnecessary and ill-advised, impact DOD’s development of the new regulation? If so, how? 

If not, why? 

Ms. PENROD. The revisions to DODI 1300.17, The Accommodation of Religious 

Practices Within the Military Services, were not impacted by the President’s statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Did President Obama’s signing statement, made on January 3, 2013, 

on the passage of the NDAA for FY 2013 calling the conscience protections unnecessary and ill-advised, impact DOD’s development of the new regulation? If so, how? 

If not, why? 

Ms. PENROD. The revisions to DODI 1300.17, The Accommodation of Religious 

Practices Within the Military Services, were not impacted by the President’s statement. 

Mr. FORBES. Revised DOD Instruction 1300.17, issued on January 22, 2014, incorporates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA). However, it undermines the 

purpose of RFRA by redefining a well-grounded constitutional term of art, ‘‘substantial burden.’’ Why did DOD alter this time-tested standard? 

Ms. PENROD. Department of Defense policy protects the civil liberties of its personnel, including religious practices to the greatest extent possible when consistent 

with military requirements. The definition was rewritten to shift the burden of proof 
158 

for justifying the accommodation request from the individual Service member to the 

commander considering the request. In doing so, the standard for disapproval was 

limited to only those cases where the commander determines that approval of the 

request would adversely mission accomplishment. 

Mr. FORBES. What avenues of review are available to a service member who believes her expressions of a religious belief have wrongfully be determined to interfere with good order and discipline and is facing administrative or disciplinary action? Is it possible that military culture discourages a service member from challenging a commander’s decision in the current channels available to service members? What notice, if any, is provided to the Chiefs of Chaplains when a service 

member faces administrative or disciplinary action for the expression of religious belief? 

Ms. PENROD. Department of Defense and Military Department policies have established standards for appeal by Service members facing administrative and/or disciplinary actions. This process ensures a Service member’s right to appeal a commander’s decision through their chain of command. The Service Chief of Chaplains 

may be notified if such actions involve a chaplain within the Service. 

Æ