COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal: An Alternative Perspective

Leveraging MRT skills and supporting religious expression beats expunging wrongthink if you want to enhance performance

In line with the Army’s People First initiative, the 1st Infantry Division (1ID) has a program called Operation Victory Wellness (OVW). One of the components of this operation is a monthly “Building Strength Through Hard Conversations” foundational day conversation topic. This month the subject is a commentary in the Military Times by Dennis Laich and Lawrence Wilkerson titled “Insurrection has led to dereliction of duty.” In this article the authors present a perspective on the issue of COVID-19 vaccine refusals within the ranks that I would characterize as extremely toxic. If widely adopted, I believe this position has the potential to severely degrade the performance of the Army. Being a supporter of OVW, believing that discussing complex issues while remaining professional is one of the best ways to build character, and having a radically different perspective on this issue that may instead enhance our performance, I feel compelled to participate in this discussion.

Among many statements of fact that could be contested (but won’t be here, the confirmation bias that has built up around this issue parallel to the Orwellian “Trusted News Initiative” is impossible to overcome without a dedicated article), Laich and Wilkerson assert that COVID-19 vaccine refusal constitutes “mass insubordination and dereliction of duty” and is a threat that far eclipses that posed by sexual assault and suicide within the ranks. I’m hoping to use this as an opportunity to provide Soldiers who are inclined to agree with this position an alternative perspective to consider. I believe this perspective, if adopted, has the potential to build resilience and enhance the performance of ALL Soldiers while supporting the political imperative senior leaders and medical personnel face to maximize vaccination rates to the furthest extent allowable by law.

When faced with a Soldier refusing COVID-19 vaccination, many leaders want to know why. Even for those who lack this curiosity, it is an important question to ask. Like any significant emotional issue, leaders should not be surprised if Soldiers are unable to articulate their reasons in a manner that adequately explains this decision. I think it is fair to say that clearly articulating any decision that is accompanied by potentially career ending consequences would be a difficult task for anyone. Fortunately, the Army has a robust program that provides tools leaders can leverage to reach an optimal outcome in such circumstances. In Ready and Resilient (R2) terminology, the kinds of core beliefs and values that lurk under the surface producing intense emotion when challenged are called icebergs. Detecting icebergs is one of the foundational skills taught in the Master Resiliency Trainer (MRT) course and is a valuable tool here to find an optimal solution to a tough problem. As a leader, if you can assist that Soldier in determining the exact scope of this iceberg, and how rigid it is, you may discover the Soldier is able to accept COVID-19 vaccination without suffering a moral injury. I should note that you will have a very difficult time doing this if you have your own icebergs to contend with. It may be difficult to even interact with Soldiers who have refused COVID-19 vaccination if one of your icebergs is “these Soldiers that are refusing this safe and effective treatment are an existential threat to the lives of my children” to give one example. Even if you put forth this effort, it is possible that you will find the iceberg in question is rigid. In these circumstances coercing a Soldier into taking an action that is in violation of a core value or belief has the potential to cause severe moral and spiritual injury. Fortunately, the Army also has a robust administrative solution for this contingency.

The Religious Accommodation (RA) process is a powerful means of balancing the impact of moral injury and any 1st, 2nd, or 3rd order effects that may be associated with granting such an accommodation. While an informative white paper was authored by CH (MAJ) Christopher Schafer, I have observed some points of frustration that, if clarified, have the potential to optimize the H2F of organisations throughout the Army. Since I don’t have CH Schafer’s permission to publish here, I will quickly summarize (but reach out to me on global if you want a copy, it is a great white paper): If a Soldier believes they have a religious belief that intereferes with their ability to meet a requirement, they can notify their commander in writing. At that point, the commander coordinates the process which includes an interview with the chaplain (and for this issue, a medical provider). While commanders might face frustration over this administrative burden, I argue that this cost is accompanied offset by supercedeing the requirement to initiate the seperation process.

The primary point of confusion in the RA process that I have observed is consternation over what constitutes a religious belief. If in discussing vaccine refusal with an affected Soldier a rigid “iceberg” is discovered, I believe it becomes appropriate for leaders to recommend pursuing RA if said iceberg constitutes a religious belief that is protected IAW AR 600-20. Determining what qualifies as a religious belief philosophically is no easy task. Fortunately, in this context, we only need to determine what constitutes a religious belief IAW federal law and there exists an excellent resource that outlines parameters. That resource is the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) compliance manual on religious discrimination. This manual was recently updated 15JAN21 and can provide Soldiers with clarity on what constitutes religious belief that is more robust than what is specified in AR 600-20. Another concern is that Soldiers asserting RA may be insincere. I believe trusting the professionalism of our Chaplains to make such a determination IAW the RA process is the most effective means of optimizing H2F.

The secondary point of concern is over the potential adverse consequences should Soldiers have any requests for RA granted. This concern is of course understandable but is the objective of the RA process in its entirety. The initial decision-making authority regarding granting a religious accommodation prior to appeal is the Surgeon General of the Army (TSG). As leaders, I believe we should be able to rely on TSG to conduct a thorough risk-to-benefit analysis to weigh the overall impact of each RA request to determine the optimal tradeoff between sequelae of moral injury associated with request denial, and risk to total force health associated with request approval. For any readers that are skeptical that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are causing significant moral injury I offer my assertion that the debate over this issue (or lack thereof) was a contributing factor in the suicide of one of my colleagues last month. Regardless of what your position is on this issue, you likely recognize that the stakes are incredibly high. Fully supporting the RA process is a moral, ethical, and professional imperative for Army leaders if only because religious discrimination is a violation of EO policy. I’ve often seen discussion of the value of diversity and inclusion in the OVW context. Let us not forget that encouraging diversity of thought and including those with different beliefs is a worthy goal that falls under this umbrella.

Regardless of the outcome of the pending RA requests within 1ID, adopting this perspective has the potential to dramatically improve resilience and enhance readiness. Keep in mind: Even if an RA request is denied, that is not an indictment of the religious belief in question, only an indication that the organization has determined that adverse outcomes related to moral injury and retention are outweighed by perceived benefits pertaining to total force health, political considerations, or a combination of both. In this circumstance is it not appropriate to treat these Soldiers with dignity and respect? After all, many may be sacrificing careers they love for principles they are unwilling to abandon. Even for Soldiers without an RA request, the recently signed NDAA adopts House Section 716, which limits the military departments to issuing a service characterization of “honorable discharge” or “general discharge under honorable conditions” to servicemembers administratively discharged for noncompliance with the COVID-19 vaccination mandate. I interpret this as evidence that even our political leadership has no desire to destroy the lives of those refusing COVID-19 vaccination with OTH or dishonorable discharges. I believe this makes it clear that the only objective of this policy is to ensure there is acceptable remedy should a Soldier wishing to remain in service be denied RA or medical exemption.

I would like to close by thanking you for engaging with me on this important issue. I ask you to look into your heart and see if you might harbor hatred for COVID-19 vaccine refusals there. If so, do you believe that you can be an effective leader for these Soldiers, or do you think that might have a negative impact on the cohesion of our team, and ultimately, our performance and lethality? Is there an iceberg there? Are you certain that anyone who refuses a COVID-19 vaccine is a knuckle dragging, anti-science insurrectionist? If you can identify an iceberg, is it rigid, or can it be modified? If you have any thoughts, please leave them below. If we’re going to move towards solving complex problems, we’re going to need to have hard conversations.