Navy News, news from Iraq - Navy Times

Officers rebuked for 2004 religious video

Seven senior military officers violated Pentagon regulations when they appeared more than three years ago in a promotional video for a private religious group, a report from the Pentagon’s inspector general found.

The officers, including Army Brig. Gen. Vince Brooks, former senior coalition spokesman in Baghdad, were found to have endorsed and expressed support — in uniform, in the Pentagon — for Christian Embassy, a private, nonprofit ministry that has been affiliated with the military for at least a quarter-century.

In participating in interviews, excerpts of which were included in a promotional video, the officers were “filmed during the duty day, in uniform with rank clearly displayed, in official and often identifiable Pentagon locations,” stated the IG report, “Alleged Misconduct by DoD Officials Concerning Christian Embassy,” dated July 20. A copy was obtained by Military Times.

The officers’ remarks conferred “approval of and support to Christian Embassy,” with some of the remarks inferring that the speaker’s views represented those of a wider group of officers, the report said.

Christian Embassy, as described in the report, is a nonprofit, nonfederal religious organization “providing religious instruction and fellowship in and around Washington, mainly to officials on Capitol Hill and within the military and diplomatic communities.” The group has been active in the Pentagon since at least 1978, the IG report said.

Acting Army Secretary Pete Geren and an unidentified female official from the Army budget office were absolved in the report because investigators found that while the two did speak on camera to endorse the group, they gave no “verbal or visual reference” to their Pentagon affiliations.

“Their interviews were conducted in unidentified hallways rather than Pentagon offices, and neither speaker was surrounded by significant visual references to DoD,” the report stated, adding again that neither had expressed or implied official sanction of their remarks.

The report concluded that the seven officers had violated JER Sections 2635.702b, “Appearance of governmental sanction”; and Defense Department Directive 1334.1, “Wearing of the Uniform”; and Army and Air Force uniform rules. The officers are:

*

* Air Force Maj. Gen. Peter Sutton, Office of Defense Cooperation, Turkey.

* Air Force Maj. Gen. John Catton Jr., requirements director, Air Combat Command.

* Brooks, now deputy commander for support for the 1st Cavalry Division.

* Army Brig. Gen. Robert Caslen Jr., commandant of cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, West Point, N.Y.

* Retired Chaplain (Col.) Ralph G. Benson, former Pentagon chaplain.

* An unnamed female Air Force colonel in the headquarters of the Air National Guard.

* An unnamed male Army lieutenant colonel in the operations directorate of Army headquarters.

Benson initiated the entire situation with his request to allow Christian Embassy to film in the Pentagon in February 2004. Benson was found to have provided a “selective benefit for Christian Embassy that could not be made available to others” without violating yet another rule, Defense Department Instruction 5410.19, “Public Affairs Community Relations Policy Implementation.”

All the officers responded, some in detail.

Sutton and Caslen “accepted full responsibility for their actions and committed to be more alert to ethical issues in the future,” the report noted.

Brooks said he believed he was operating within “acceptable ethical parameters for a government official.”

Catton provided his own response as well as from his military and civilian attorneys. They collectively argued that Christian Embassy had become a “quasi-federal entity,” and noted that DoD had endorsed the group’s ministry to general officers for a quarter-century.

Benson had the broadest defense — that his due process rights were violated and that the DoD IG did not have authority to investigate complaints lodged by nonfederal entities (the original charges came from other private-sector religious groups).

The unnamed female colonel said that while she would seek more guidance in similar situations in the future, she disagreed with the IG’s findings, insisting her actions were “completely proper.”

The unnamed male light colonel asserted the same procedural charges as Benson: violation of due process rights and lack of authority. He also believed he was “authorized to be identified” by rank.

The IG summed up: “None of the respondents provided new or material evidence that would cause us to change our findings in the matter.”

Discuss:

Religion in uniform