Documentation of Army Discrimination against Atheists
One of the criticisms I received when I initially submitted my resignation and went public with my story of how the Army and the Army National Guard were discriminating against atheists was that I had not provided sufficient documentation for my claims. Part of the reason for this was that I was using a forum that did not allow me to post the documentation with the article. I wrote about it on American Chronicle’s site because they are part of a Google news database which insured wide dissemination of the story. Unfortunately, only a thumbnail photo can be submitted with the article which was not sufficient to provide the related documents. The other part of the reason was that I do not own a scanner and at the time had no screen shot software. I have since rectified part of that problem.
I initially filed a formal Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint against Lieutenant General H. Steven Blum on August 15th, 2006 for disparaging remarks he made about atheists while addressing the NAACP about diversity in the military on July 18th, 2006. The Ohio National Guard Equal Employment Opportunity Manager, Chief Warrant Officer (CW3) Carmen Davis, signed for the complaint on August 15th and gave me a copy with my signature and hers on it. She forwarded it to the National Guard Bureau Equal Opportunity (NGB EO) office on August 18th and they signed for it on August 22nd. More than six weeks went by without any response. I was told that because the complaint named a general officer it must be immediately forwarded to the Department of the Army Inspector General’s (DAIG) office. So I called them on October 5th. They told me they had never received the complaint. They called CW3 Davis who told them that NGB EO had signed for it on August 22nd. They called NGB EO and NGB EO contacted CW3 Davis asking her to send another copy of it. Below is a screen shot of a forwarded email from CW3 Davis which confirms this.
Where did the original complaint that NGB EO signed for on August 18th go? They either lost or threw away a formal EO complaint. The fact that they expressed such desire for confidentiality makes me believe they threw it away hoping I would just let it go. CW3 Davis faxed them another copy on October 5th. I then received the following email from NGB EO on October 11th.
Here is the fax cover sheet and the signature page that CW3 Davis sent to NGB EO on October 5th.
Why was NGB EO lying to me about the status of my complaint? Why would they ask for something on October 11th that they had clearly received on August 22nd and again on October 5th? It was signed and did contain all of the information requested. The text of the email hints at the answer. They were stalling and hoping I would eventually drop it. That’s the only reason I can come up with for making me snail mail a third copy to them if I “wish to pursue this complaint”.
Once DAIG had the complaint it didn’t get any better. The complainant in a formal EO complaint is supposed to receive written notification of the resolution of the complaint. After again waiting six weeks with no contact I followed up with DAIG on the phone. I was told that the complaint had been processed and returned to NGB EO for administrative action. I called NGB EO and they told me they had not received anything back from DAIG. NGB EO called me later that day to inform me that DAIG had dropped it. They further told me that, despite the fact they are supposed to respond to formal complaints in writing, DAIG had no intention of sending a written response. I had to request documents related to my complaint under the Freedom of Information Act. The request was partially denied. The letter from the records release office is below.
The Complaint Review Memorandum that was released to me had Blum’s name and the preparer’s name blocked out. It noted that I learned of Blum’s remarks “from a news article and not firsthand experience” which is completely irrelevant. It noted that NGB Public Affairs had previously addressed this issue which is, again, completely irrelevant. NGB Public Affairs issued a statement after receiving complaints that Blum’s remarks had been taken out of context in a news story and were not intended to offend. But having his spin doctors claim that he didn’t “intend” to offend has no bearing on whether or not he actually made offensive remarks. Further, I got the text of the remarks Blum made from a DOD website, not out of context from a news story. Below is the memorandum.
In February 2007, two Non-Commissioned officers who attended an Ohio Army National Guard Equal Opportunity workshop told me that the workshop involved scenario based training for handling EO complaints. The scenarios are taken from real complaints. The names and some details are changed, but the scenario is very close to the actual complaint. They recognized one of the scenarios as my complaint. Below is a copy of the scenario which is now an example included in unit level EO representatives’ EO binders.
They went on to explain that, after some debate among the EO reps in attendance about whether this scenario involved discrimination or not, Sergeant Major Henderson told them that no discrimination occurred because “atheism is not a religion”. This contradicts previous Army EO training materials. Below is an excerpt from Training Support Package (TSP) 805C-AE0-1005 / Army’s Equal Opportunity (EO) Intermediate Leader Training (Level V) dated January 2006 and found here: http://agsssi-www.army.mil/eowebsite/TSP/EO%20Level%20V%20TSP%2001-18-06.doc
The scenario is different than the one mentioned above, however, it is worth noting that this TSP doesn’t say that there was no discrimination because atheism isn’t a religion. It says that, in this scenario involving an atheist, “the EO policy was violated by religious discrimination”. I guess the difference is that SFC Owens’ boss is not a chaplain or a three star general.
Here are some excerpts from Army Regulation 600-20. Effective date: 7 July 2006
6-2. Equal opportunity policy
a. The U.S. Army will provide EO and fair treatment for military personnel and family members without regard to race, color, gender, religion, national origin, and provide an environment free of unlawful discrimination and offensive behavior.
(1) Discrimination. Any action that unlawfully or unjustly results in unequal treatment of persons or groups based on race, color, gender, national origin, or religion.
(2) Disparaging terms. Terms used to degrade or connote negative statements pertaining to race, color, gender, national origin, or religion. Such terms may be expressed as verbal statements, printed material, visual material, signs, symbols, posters, or insignia. The use of these terms constitutes unlawful discrimination.
(10) Religion. A personal set or institutionalized system of attitudes, moral or ethical beliefs and practices held with the strength of traditional views, characterized by ardor and faith, and generally evidenced through specific observances.
(6) Prejudice. A negative feeling or dislike based upon a faulty or inflexible generalization (that is, prejudging a person or group without knowledge or facts).
It is clear in the regulation that disparaging soldiers (or their family members in the case of Pat Tillman) on the basis of religion is unlawful discrimination. Disparaging soldiers because they have no religion is still discrimination on the basis of religion. Prejudice is defined as being based on faulty or inflexible generalizations. Claiming that there are no atheists in foxholes is both a faulty and inflexible generalization.
Lieutenant General Blum’s remarks were prejudicial by the Army regulations’ definition. His disparaging remarks on the basis of religion constitute unlawful discrimination by Army regulations. The NGB EO office violated the law by throwing away and later stone-walling a legitimate EO complaint. The DAIG office failed to apply Army EO regulations on a legitimate EO complaint and failed to follow Army regulations in their processing of the complaint. The Ohio Army National Guard is now providing training to their unit level EO reps which contradicts Army regulations and previous training TSPs. Discrimination is alive and well in the military.