Army chaplain reprimanded for discussing his faith

After multiple combat deployments, chaplain and U.S. Army Ranger Joseph Lawhorne shared during a suicide prevention training class how his faith had helped him deal with his own depression. His transparency and concern for his soldiers earned him an ovation from the class attendees. But because one soldier objected to Lawhorne’s use of a handout containing biblical as well as secular approaches to handling depression, he is now being officially reprimanded by the Army.

The Nov. 20 mandatory suicide prevention class at the University of North Georgia was part of a day-long training for the 5th Ranger Training Battalion (RTB) that involved other mandatory classes, including sexual assault prevention and alcohol awareness. During the training presentation, Lawhorne shared his own personal struggle with depression and said he found help by turning to Scripture and his faith.

“His fellow soldiers say that throughout his training presentation he made clear on multiple occasions that not only is discussing his faith or his own method for dealing with depression the only way … to treat depression, he never even said it was the appropriate way,” said Mike Berry, senior counsel at the Liberty Institute, which is representing Lawhorne. “He just said, this is what works for me.”

Despite the positive response to the training, one of the soldiers in attendance took offense and complained to a non-military advocacy group called the Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, which published a critical post the following day. The Huffington Post linked to it and published a negative article mentioning Lawhorne and his presentation.

On Nov. 27, Thanksgiving Day, Lawhorne was ordered to report in person to his brigade commander, Col. David Fivecoat, at Fort Benning, Ga.—a three-hour drive from the 5th RTB headquarters in Dahlonega, Ga.—where he received both a verbal reprimand and an official “letter of concern” in which he was informed he had violated Army regulations and Equal Opportunity policy by advocating “for Christianity and us[ing] Christian scripture and solutions.”

Liberty Institute immediately responded to the colonel’s letter, informing him that neither Army regulations nor Army EO policy prohibit Lawhorne’s actions.

“In fact, they explicitly say that expressing your religious belief is protected in the Army,” Berry told me.

As a result of the Liberty Institute’s response, Fivecoat withdrew the initial letter and reissued a new one, dated Dec. 8, which makes no mention of any violation of Army regulations or policies. A comparison of the two letters highlights other key differences. In the original letter, Lawhorne was told that, “as the battalion chaplain, you are entrusted with the emotional and spiritual wellbeing of the soldiers in the battalion.” In the second version, the word “spiritual” is absent, despite the fact that Army regulation 600-63 has a chapter on the importance of “spiritual fitness.”

In the new letter, Fivecoat gave Lawhorne seven days to respond before making a final decision either to file the letter in his local personnel file or withdraw it. But a statement late Friday by Fivecoat’s superior, Maj. Gen. Scott Miller, the Commanding General of the Army’s Maneuver Center of Excellence at Ft. Benning, implies the letter will be filed but that it should not be considered punishment.

“By design, letters of concerns are temporary, local administrative actions that are removed from a soldier’s personnel file upon transfer to another assignment,” the statement read.

But Berry disputed the non-punishment characterization: “A Letter of Concern is not a judicial punishment like a court martial, but it’s an administrative form of punishment. It certainly is a negative mark against you, and especially if you’re an officer.”

Miller’s statement further suggested that Lawhorne’s transgression was to provide “religious instruction” during a non-religious, mandatory training class.

“Chaplains may appropriately share their personal experiences, but any religious information given by a chaplain to a military formation should be limited to an orientation of what religious services and facilities are available and how to contact chaplains of specific faiths,” Miller said in his statement.

Berry believes the Army’s action may be in violation of Federal law and Liberty Institute is considering legal options. Section 533 of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA)—the right of conscience clause—states that the Armed Forces “may not use such expression of beliefs as the basis of any adverse personnel action.”

“It’s an action, and it’s certainly adverse,” Berry told me. “Even the proverbial ‘hand slap’ would be adverse action. Duration makes no difference.”