Loyalty test; the case of Chaplain Robertson - Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Garland Robertson - Column

The issue of Robertson's letter to the editor was also highlighted in comments from the Chief of Chaplains office. According to Chaplain Lorraine Potter, the chief of plans and programs for that office (who was quoted in the Times article), "The argument is not what he said but that he used his position to express political or controversial issues." Contacted later, Potter indicated she is under orders to make no further comment.

But according to the Air Force's own case against Robertson, heard by the Board of Inquiry last September, the letter to the editor was "irrelevant." Three allegations ("Statement of Reasons") were brought to the BOI administrative hearing. The first was that Robertson was "disrespectful in words and actions towards his immediate superior." The second: his "leadership skills were below standard." The third: he was diagnosed as "having a personality disorder."

After hearing extensive testimony, the BOI threw out the allegations about being disrespectful and about the personality disorder. The remaining charge of substandard leadership was sustained, along with the recommendation of an honorable discharge. That charge was supported by an annual evaluation written in April 1991 noting that Robertson's "leadership style produced minimal results." This contention marked a radical reversal, however, from the previous assessment, in which Robertson was characterized as "an outstanding pastoral chaplain, always eager to help others and consistently displays industriousness, conscientiousness and diligence in his ministry." The same senior chaplain and base commander wrote and approved both reports.

The allegation was further contradicted by the sworn statements of two parish council members of the Dyess AFB chapel community, one of whom testified that she felt "that [Robertson] was being censored .... If our chapel is going tO be the type of chapel where our chaplains are going to be told what they can and what they cannot say when they come before the flock, then we may as well disband the chaplaincy."

Responding to Robertson's appeal of an Officer Performance Report, the Air Force judge advocate wrote, in part, that "what the applicant characterizes as pastoral, fairly falls under the characterization of political activity." Robertson responds that it is Air Force authorities, not he, who are engaging in political activity in their recommendation of dismissal. He wonders whether federal funds are being used to turn the chaplaincy "into an agency promoting a kind of civil religion. If the power of the state is unrestricted, then those of us who minister to members of the military forces are guilty of sacrificing the souls of our comrades on the altar of nationalism."

Even more important, insists Robertson, is that the very integrity of the military chaplaincy is at stake. In a final summary statement, Air Force Captain Shaun Riley argues: "Discharging Chaplain Robertson would not only be a gross injustice to him and his family, but will also call the constitutional legitimacy of the military chaplaincy into question in subsequent actions. If the government discharges chaplains who refuse to compromise their religious beliefs, speech and teachings to appease military commanders, we will... have created a religious body, under federal salary, that exists solely to support government policy and objectives. Yes, this is government establishment of religion in its purest form."