Religious Accommodation Request
MY APPEAL TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY FOR MANPOWER AND RESERVES
NOTE: I submitted this letter prior to the end of the military vaccine mandate. The mandate was rescinded ensuring that I will never receive an official response. This final version incorporated feedback from readers, most notably from Jay Rollins of The Wonderland Rules who lent me his complimentary and most professional eye on short notice, a favor for which I will always be appreciative. Typically I post articles that have the potential to generate controversy of a political nature on my other publication, The Radical American Mind, but this directly pertains to holistic health and fitness and military readiness, so I felt it was most appropriate to publish here. The subject matter is intense. Reader discretion is advised.
Ms. Secretary
My name is Grant Smith. I am a Captain (recently selected for promotion to Major) in our Army currently serving as the Holistic Health and Fitness (H2F) Director for the 1st Infantry Division in beautiful Fort Riley, Kansas. I recently received notification from LTG Dingle that he denied my request for Religious Accommodation (RA) to forego mandatory COVID-19 vaccination. If LTG Dingle had based this denial on sound reasoning consistent with current data and the requirements outlined in the U.S Constitution and Religious Freedom and Restoration Act (RFRA), I would likely simply tender my resignation. However, the arguments outlined therein do not conform to these requirements, and so, in accordance with my oath to support and defend the Constitution, I am morally and ethically compelled to appeal this decision. I only hope that you give it due consideration, as a denial from you will necessarily lead to a Board of Inquiry that will burden my unit administratively and my loving spouse with the stress that always accompanies uncertainty related to my military career coinciding with our 12 years of marriage.1
Denial Memo
LTG Dingle’s denial memo stipulates that I have “a sincere religious belief”. It follows then that, per DODI 1300.17, I should be exempted from the otherwise applicable military policy of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination unless (1) [Vaccination] is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest. (2) It is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest. In applying the standard in Paragraphs 1.2.e.(1) and 1.2.e.(2), the burden of proof is placed upon the Army in this circumstance. While LTG Dingle indicates that he, along with some of my [previous] commanders, find that receiving vaccination constitutes this least restrictive means, the arguments to support this assertion are either baseless or illogical. I understand that engaging in deliberate and logical reasoning takes time that most senior leaders simply don’t have in the current operating environment. For this reason, Commanders at echelon are required to trust the recommendations of subject matter experts (SMEs) within their formations. With respect to force health and readiness to ensure mission accomplishment, I am one such expert. For the record, I was never consulted by my leadership regarding their perception that my compliance with this mandate is necessary in the interests of promoting unit readiness. Again, I understand that they are very busy people. That said, I implore you to take time out of your busy schedule to consider my arguments as one of the Army’s leading experts in health and fitness/readiness in full such that your final decision may be an informed one that I am duty bound to accept.
Baseless Assumptions
To begin with, LTG Dingle states “Your chain of command noted that your duties include evaluating and treating Soldiers and patients in close proximity, where social distancing is not feasible. Your chain of command stated that granting your exception would place Soldiers already in need of medical care at risk and could adversely impact patient readiness, as well as your own readiness.” There are several problems with this claim. First, even though as a board certified Doctor of Physical Therapy I enjoy providing patient care, my current duties do not require that I perform face-to-face patient care so this is simply inaccurate. In fact, although it would be unpleasant, and inefficient, I could probably accomplish all of my assigned duties entirely remotely. Second, LTG Dingle and/or my commanders are making two distinct assumptions that I will deal with separately:
Pfizer’s Comirnaty and/or Moderna’s Spikevax confers sterlizing immunity.2
Accepting vaccination with Pfizer’s Comirnaty or Moderna’s Spikevax is necessary in the interests of promoting my readiness.
Comirnaty and Spikevax do not confer sterilizing immunity. On Fort Riley, our Division Operations and Research Systems Analyst MAJ Doug Sharp was tasked with evaluating if there was any relationship between vaccination status and cases of COVID-19 on our installation in the winter of 2022. He found that there was no statistically significant difference in infection rates between those with and without these vaccinations. This is in spite of a policy that required the weekly testing of asymptomatic unvaccinated Soldiers. Such testing can be expected to produce a number of false positive results, so a null finding in the midst of this confound is really quite remarkable. Neither the CDC, FDA, nor DHA currently assert that Comirnaty or Spikevax prevent infection and transmission of SARS-CoV2. In an effort to see if I missed something, I reached out to a colleague currently working as the Associate Director of the Statistics and Epidemiology Branch Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, Dr. Sid Chaudry. I requested any evidence that these vaccines confer sterilizing immunity. Sid has a background in immunology and vaccinology specifically, and I’ve also surmised from interacting with him that he is a man of integrity. A simple assertion from Sid that these vaccines provide sterilizing immunity would warrant serious consideration on my part. To date, he hasn’t responded which informs me that my understanding of the current state of the evidence on this topic is accurate. Perhaps since the Army has the burden of proof for any claims used to deny me accommodation for my sincerely held belief, consulting with a subject matter expert such as Sid could be informative. In any case, given the facts as I understand them, I am left to conclude that the concern regarding placing other Soldiers/patients at increased risk secondary to vaccination status outlined in LTG Dingle’s memo is entirely baseless.
An Illogical Position
The question of the impact of vaccination on my readiness is less straightforward. On one hand, since I won’t accept vaccination, my readiness will ultimately be reduced to zero in the form of involuntary separation if I’m not ultimately accommodated. Since there are medical conditions that result in immediate separation (e.g. insulin dependent diabetes mellitus), this observation is insufficient to make my case. In an attempt to do so, I’d like to make something of a bold claim. The claim I’d like to make as a subject matter expert in health, fitness, and readiness, is that submitting to vaccination would actually decrease my readiness. To investigate the merit of this claim, let us examine an opposite scenario whereby I accept vaccination, but make a number of legally permissible lifestyle choices that would leave me in compliance with all relevant readiness requirements, but considerably less ready in real terms in a reductio ad absurdum.
The Story of Two Grants
The first Grant is the genuine article. He stays consistent with his deeply held convictions by not complying with compulsory vaccination. He doesn’t smoke, he doesn’t get drunk, he performs around 500min of exercise/week, he doesn’t exceed the speed limit by more than 10%, he doesn’t ride a motorcycle, and he doesn’t engage in sexual activity outside of his monogamous marriage to his faithful wife. He consistently sleeps 7-8 hours/night. The only significant behavioral health concerns that he's had over the last 24 months include brief suicidal ideation after learning about the vaccine mandate, and the stress associated with said mandate since that brief time. While his current position is on the AUG TDA and therefore not deployable, he is physically fit and healthy to the same extent that allowed him to be able to deploy on operational rotation in the midst of the COVID outbreak in 2020 to the Republic of Korea where he earned a medal for his contributions to the health and readiness of his unit.3 He was able to score a 587 on the ACFT, and look like a warrior while doing it. In spite of all of this, many leaders insist that first Grant is derelict in his duty. They would prefer that he abandon his most deeply held moral convictions and become "progressive Grant".
Progressive Grant
Like first Grant, progressive Grant is an atheist. Unlike first Grant, progressive Grant has determined that his principles are getting in the way of his ability to Be Somebody in the U.S. Army. Realizing this upon notification of LTG Dingle’s denial of his religious accommodation request, progressive Grant immediately gets the J&J jab. He knows the risk of adverse events is lower with this one dose, and he is rewarded with only mild joint pain that lasts for a few days prior to enjoying a full recovery. Looking at his beautiful family, progressive Grant thinks only of the effort that it takes to care for them, and how they interfere with his ability to advance in his military career and satisfy his most base desires. After all, why not? If he wants to go all the way in the Army, a spouse and children whining about deployment is certainly of no use. Better that they all move on and find someone who is willing to prioritize them over the U.S. Army. Progressive Grant files for divorce which is quickly finalized. His spouse is wise enough to recognize the man she fell in love with is gone. Progressive Grant moves to Lawrence, Kansas as he believes this will facilitate his transition to a more expedient lifestyle. He completes the required Army training to ride a motorcycle, and buys one that he uses to commute nearly 200 miles daily. He doesn’t wear a helmet off post, because he know that unlike the COVID vaccine mandate, senior leaders don’t have the bandwidth to hold him accountable for such transgressions. Also, if he gets into a wreck, he doesn’t want to walk away from it. Lights out, no problem. Being 6’7”, physically fit, and reasonably attractive, he enters into the modern dating scene and begins engaging in regular unprotected sex. The psychological consequences of this lifestyle start to mount. Progressive Grant turns to alcohol abuse to quiet his demons. He’s no longer sleeping consistently, or exercising. He doesn’t have the time, or so he tells himself. He continues to pass the ACFT with ease because the minimum standards are a joke.
Progressive Grant → MAJ Greta Smith
In the midst of engaging in this lifestyle, progressive Grant ends up engaging in homosexual sex. While he doesn’t prefer it, he realizes that in the current political environment there is an intersectional advantage to being homosexual, so he begins regularly engaging in unprotected homosexual sex. While most of the sexually transmitted infections he acquires are easily treated, including monkey pox, he eventually contracts HIV. Thankfully this is no longer an impediment to military service with consistent treatment, but it does leave him non-deployable for an extended period of time. Whether from the alcoholism, lack of sleep, cognitive dissonance, or some combination thereof, progressive Grant’s work performance begins to deteriorate. He starts smoking, increases amphetamine dosages to 40mg/day, and caffeine to around 1000mg. He realizes that in order to Be Somebody in the Army, being homosexual simply isn’t enough to advance the heterodox reforms necessary to optimize human performance in his unit. It was a silly idea in the first place, perhaps merely an ex post facto doubling down on what he knew was a cringe-worthy mistake. While open homosexuality might offend or disgust some leaders, the fact that it is unprofessional to discuss personal sexual behavior makes it easy enough for everyone to ignore. Faced with this conundrum, progressive Grant makes the decision that he would be better off as a woman. He has always felt somewhat effeminate, but let his physical size dissuade him from taking such a drastic action. Feeling effeminate every once in awhile doesn’t warrant the blowing up your entire life. But the culture had changed. And his life had blown up. Progressive Grant had already made the decision to advance his military career at all costs, and the benefits of pursuing this course of action were difficult to ignore. Responding to incentives in front of him, he resolves to start a new chapter in his life. With affirmation from the behavioral health team, MAJ Greta Smith changes her gender to female in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) making it official. Once accomplished, she completes all available medical procedures to support this transition to include hormone therapy with estrogen and anti-androgens, tracheal shaving, laser hair removal, facial feminization surgery, breast augmentation, orchiectomy, and a penile inversion vaginoplasty. This process takes about 24 months. There are some complications as all of these procedures carry risks, but with the help of hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars, the job gets done. Greta isn’t medically available to deploy throughout much of this time-frame, but the Army recognizes that these procedures are medically necessary and that it is essential to accommodate her, even if much of this 12-24 month time-frame filled with dozens of medical encounters and several weeks of convalescent leave. The Army puts People First. In the coming years any time Greta is faced with a leader that doesn’t fully support what she is doing, she wonders aloud if it is because she is a woman. Progressive Grant’s homosexuality was easy enough to ignore, but such a strategy proved untenable for even the most progressive leaders when confronted by a 6’7” MAJ Greta Smith. Leaders quickly find that in the interest of promoting organizational efficiency, it is usually best to give Greta what she wants, and for the most part, she deserves it. She is an above average officer with an excellent understanding of how to enhance the holistic health and fitness of Soldiers in her unit and provide excellent patient care while on duty. She isn’t very physically fit, spends a lot of time in mental health appointments, has an elevated risk of injury and illness from multiple sexually transmitted infections, alcoholism, stimulant use, lack of sleep, tobacco use, and riding a motorcycle for hundreds of miles per day, but she is vaccinated.
Who is Ready?
In his memo, LTG Dingle informed me that my [previous] “chain of command concluded that the use of less restrictive means are not feasible alternatives in order to complete your duties and are incompatible with effective training, mission readiness, and potential future combat operations.” To be clear, I’m making the argument that my previous chain of command held beliefs that would logically require them to agree that MAJ Greta Smith, in complying with the vaccine mandate, exemplifies an officer with a higher state of readiness than the non-compliant “first Grant”.
The COVID Threat
In a particularly poignant section of LTG Dingle’s denial memo, he states “COVID-19 is a grave risk to the readiness of the force, and in your case, I find that vaccination is the least restrictive means to further the Department of the Army's compelling government interests”. But is COVID-19 currently a grave risk to the readiness of the force? Was it ever? We have a database called the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED) that is supposed to be able to help answer this exact question. In spite of significant evidence that this database has been tampered with, there are no visible signals in DMED that COVID has had a significant, let alone grave impact on the health and readiness of the force. In fact, 2020 showed an improvement in various readiness metrics. Of even greater concern, the number of COVID deaths in the DoD rose sharply in conjunction with mass vaccination. This could be due to the influence of the Delta variant on our population, but it could also be due to the mass vaccination campaign.4 It has been said that none of those who lost their lives were fully vaccinated, but how many had received at least on dose of a COVID vaccine? What is associated with more death and disability among active duty service members, SARS-CoV2, or MRNA vaccines? What risk does COVID pose to a 35 y/o M active duty service member (ADSM) with natural immunity and no co-morbidities? Has a single healthy, unvaccinated 35 y/o M ADSM been been diagnosed with severe disease from COVID-19 in the past 12 months? Has any unvaccinated ADSM under the age of 40 without co-morbidities and natural immunity been hospitalized from COVID in the last 24 months? We have electronic health records. This wouldn’t be that difficult to investigate.5 Courts have been asking the DoD to provide such evidence for some time. The fact that they haven’t should tell you everything you need to know about the legitimacy of the claim that COVID-19 is currently posing a grave risk to the readiness of the force.
“Least Restrictive”
In U.S. constitutional law, when a court finds that a law infringes a fundamental constitutional right, it may apply the strict scrutiny standard to nevertheless hold the law or policy constitutionally valid if the government can demonstrate in court that the law or regulation is necessary to achieve a "compelling state interest". The government must also demonstrate that the law is "narrowly tailored" to achieve the compelling purpose, and uses the "least restrictive means" to achieve the purpose. Failure to show these conditions may result in a judge striking down a law as unconstitutional.6 I don't believe that the Army can deny religious accommodations in the C19 vaccine context without violating this standard. In an effort to hold the government accountable and fulfill my oath to the Constitution, I am morally required to exhaust all legal remedies available in the event this appeal is denied. This includes a Board of Inquiry and participation in ongoing federal litigation to which I am party. If the law requires that I be granted this accommodation, it is a tragic waste of government resources to convene such a board and litigate in court if the ultimate outcome will be a court's determination that the Army's failure to provide accommodation in this context is a violation of Constitutional rights. Even though I am not obligated to provide evidence that COVID-19 vaccines are dangerous and ineffective, from my perspective this is the case. I wil acknowledge that this is very difficult to prove when the DoD and CDC don’t make all of the data available. I’ve had to observe data from several countries, read dozens of scientific papers, and extrapolate with clinical reasoning to come to such a conclusion. It is because of this position, though, that I am very concerned by some of the things I have observed within my community. When I learned that a colleague expressed concerns about the vaccine mandate before taking his own life, I had to assume that this was a tragic, but isolated anecdote. But what if there are several service members who have taken their own lives in part because of the stress associate with this mandate? When previously healthy Soldiers under 40 die from “natural causes” after receiving a booster, is it simply a tragic coincidence? Scrutiny into the relationship between this vaccine mandate and death in our Armed Forces would provide essential intelligence in the ongoing effort to optimize total force health. Soldiers are still receiving boosters in some units under the impression that this is a requirement. Perhaps if accommodations are granted, this aversion to looking at the data can be put behind us so that individual Soldiers may make more informed risk decisions with respect to these Emergency Use Authorized products.
Constitution and Readiness vs. Politics
Ms. Secretary, I don’t know your politics. I do know that in order to hold your current position you had to take an oath to our constitution. In the name of fulfilling that oath, I beseech you to consider the arguments I’ve laid out. If you find my arguments lacking, tell me why. To date, of the dozens of medical providers and senior officers I’ve discussed this issue with, not one has even attempted to argue that accepting a COVID-19 vaccination will improve my readiness, much less meet the standard of strict scrutiny. For the most part, they agree with my position that this vaccine won’t improve readiness, but insist that nobody cares about this reality. There is a widespread consensus that politics trumps any real concern for readiness in our Armed Forces. As long as I am able to continue to wear the uniform, I am proof that this isn’t universally true. Help me keep hope alive for a military that puts readiness and the constitution above politics. I understand that doing so will come with a tremendous cost. In making such a decision, you would be irrevocably aligning yourself in a spiritual conflict against those who prioritize political expediency over the rule of law. Such a decision would provide genuine leadership in a nascent movement to restore respect and admiration for the Constitution in the hearts and minds of the American people. If you value freedom and the American way of life, why not take the boldest of first steps towards putting our nation first in a precarious time when many Americans are becoming concerned that our military leaders are no longer interested in fulling their oaths to the Constitution? The mission of the organization you lead is to set strategic direction, develop policy, allocate resources, and supervise all matters pertaining to Manpower and Reserve Component Affairs to sustain and position the Army for the future. Even if none of what I have said so far resonates with you, do you really believe that the expungement of thousands of Soldiers with sincerely held religious beliefs precluding COVID vaccination will further this mission?
Call for Collaboration
The current readiness and retention crisis the Army is facing concerns me deeply, and I would cherish the opportunity to work with you to resolve it in the interests of serving this great nation and her people. If you deign to grant myself and others similarly situated the religious accommodations to which we are legally, morally, and ethically entitled under our Constitution, I think you will be truly shocked by the degree to which we may assist you in accomplishing your mission. Those of us unvaccinated service members are principled, heterodox thinkers. By combining our efforts with your professional skill set, I’m confident we can find workable solutions if they exist. If you've read this all the way through then I commend and appreciate you. I have faith that if you grant me the accommodation I seek we can work together to realize a ready and lethal Army that is adequately situated for the challenges to come.
NOTE FOR READERS OF H2F MAN: I know this is a very long letter, but there was a lot that I had to get out of my head. I wanted to speak my conscience and make a comprehensive case in a manner consistent with all legal, moral, and ethical requirements. Also, it should be obvious that nothing in here is endorsed by the DoD or my current chain of command, although I would love the opportunity to discuss these issues with anyone in my chain of command or any DoD official. If you got all the way here from the top, I can’t thank you enough for your time and interest. It is nice to have as much company as possible while it feels like most of the world is going insane.
I must confess that in spite of this burden, I would enjoy the opportunity to present the overwhelming evidence to some of the officers on my installation inside a military courtroom that COVID-19 vaccination does not contribute to the readiness for healthy Soldiers under the age of 40 with confirmed recovery from infection/natural immunity.
I indicate these two formulations because they are the only ones that can be legally mandated without a presidential order, which has hitherto not been provided. It is worth noting that neither of these formulations are currently available rendering compulsory vaccination with the EUA versions of these products functionally illegal, but I’m content to let that be adjudicated in the courts. Since I won’t be submitting to vaccination even if these fully approved versions become available. As has been stipulated by LTG Dingle and my chaplain, this is required by my sincerely held religious beliefs. I include this merely for your situational awareness.
Look, I know everyone gets medals on deployments, operational or not, but I mention it because I believe I earned it and that I did, in fact, make material contributions to the health and well-being of the Soldiers in my unit.
Correlation vs. Causation goes both ways. We can’t assume the more politically expedient correlational variable is causal without a robust analysis, and yet, this has been done time and again throughout the pandemic. This is what happens when our public health institutions have been captured by an industry that stands to make billions from such motivated reasoning.
It might be difficult to investigate due to transition from AHLTA to MHS GENESIS, but if data integrity issues are that bad, someone from DHA needs to come online and say so.
Pulled directly from Wikipedia’s page on Strict Scrutiny. Thanks Wikipedia!
Religious Accommodation Request
It's nuts that you're still having to deal with this. At this point it seems that most employers are quietly walking back the mandates. No one, including officialdom, persists with the lie that the shots prevent transmission - it's just too obviously not true at this point.
A lot of the other commenters recommended taking out the Two Grants part. That was the best part, I laughed my ass off. That said - probably not the best rhetorical direction to take given the audience. Then again, given that the audience is utterly impervious to logical, empirically based argument, but proceed entirely by motivated reasoning towards predetermined political conclusions, it's not really clear to me what even constitutes effective rhetoric.
I'm just a civilian with no advice what-so-ever. However, thank you for sharing this. It gives me hope that there are people like yourself in the military. I read it as an interesting and well formulated thought experiment. As I read, I was wondering if you had some insight on the assistant secretary. Thank you for explaining "least restrictive means."
I appreciate that you chose the name Greta. I suspect you would be an abomination as a woman ;) No offense, I hope.