My concern is not change itself. The Army must adapt. Change can make us better, more effective, and more relevant. My concern is whether these proposed Chaplain Corps changes were developed with the trust, stewardship, and disciplined staff work that a profession owes the force before implementation. During my service as a Chaplain changes were pushed out for how we operate and support Soldiers, those came with Memorandums for Record and Training Support Packages so there was a consistent message and uniform effort.
From my foxhole, the Army profession rests on trust, honorable service, military expertise, stewardship, and esprit de corps. The Army ethic binds those ideas together and requires decisions to be ethical, effective, and efficient. (Training Circular 7-21.13, The Soldier’s Guide, 17 September 2025, chapter 1, especially paras. 1-1 through 1-7 on the Army profession and its characteristics, and paras. 1-13 through 1-17 on approachable leaders and positive command climate) When major changes affect the public face and practice of chaplaincy, the field should receive a clear statement of purpose, assumptions, risk, and execution. That did not happen here. The result in confusion, distress and be a strain on trust inside the Chaplain Corps and across the formations we support.
Integrity requires us to say what is true as best we know it. At this point, the facts and assumptions behind these proposals have not been laid out in a way that matches the course of action being advanced. That weakens their credibility. Personal courage includes moral courage. If a proposal is sound, it should withstand clear questions. If it does not, the burden falls back on those advancing it, not on those asking for explanation.
I understand the stated appeal of the proposed changes. A chaplain identified first by faith symbol may seem easier to approach. A smaller list of religious codes may look administratively cleaner. Army leadership doctrine points in a different direction. Leaders become approachable by inviting open and candid communication, showing respect, preparing well, giving clear feedback, and following through. Counseling and leader development do not rest on optics. They rest on character, competence, and consistent action.
The issues a Soldier or Family member brings to a Unit Ministry Team are often dipped in the residue or consist significantly of trauma, moral distress, moral injury, grief, misconduct, or family crisis. Those matters are hard because of what they carry, not because of the rank on the listener’s chest. The stronger corrective action lies in better accession screening, better formation before service, better professional development in pastoral care during service, and better leader development. If chaplains need more work in those areas, the answer is to address it through education, professional development, coaching, counseling, and evaluation. Brigade and Command Chaplains carry that responsibility and should act on it.
On rank, I remain persuaded that chaplains should continue to wear rank insignia. The burden is on those advancing change to explain why removing rank now would improve care inside a system that still reads responsibility, authority, and standing through rank. Army Regulations are already clear that a chaplain has rank without command. (10 U.S.C. § 7231, “Command: chaplains,” states, “A chaplain has rank without command.”) That distinction matters. Rank does not make chaplaincy about power. It signals experience, responsibility, access, and standing inside a military system where commanders, staffs, and outside agencies read authority at a glance. Army correspondence rules also preserve that professional identity by requiring chaplain signature blocks to show Chaplain followed by grade in parentheses. (Army Regulation 25-50, Preparing and Managing Correspondence, 10 October 2020, para. 6-5c)
My deeper concern is the staff process. Good staff work gets the commander the right information in the right form at the right time. If a change this consequential is sound, there should be a clear problem statement, options, risks, second order effects, and an implementation plan behind it. Without that, the field receives announcement without explanation and expected execution without trust. That is not a solid way to move forward with our profession or with care for Soldiers and Families.
That same concern applies to religious codes. Administrative simplicity has value. So does clarity. Yet religious support depends on precision. In practice, those codes help chaplains and religious affairs teams identify real distinctions, advise commanders, and build the local relationships that let Soldiers and Families practice their faith with integrity. When categories are flattened too far, the result is less accurate religious support, not better religious support.
Using my overwatch position for further explanation, there is a reason the Army moved beyond the old big three categories of Roman Catholic, Protestant, and Jewish. Those labels are too broad for the actual work of religious support. Christians are not interchangeable. Lutherans are not interchangeable. Jewish Soldiers are not interchangeable. Orthodox, Conservative, and Reform Jewish practice differ in ways that matter. The same is true across Christian communions and within them. Precise terms matter because belief, worship, clergy practice, sacramental life, and moral teaching differ in ways that shape what a chaplain may do, what a Soldier expects, and where a Family will find care that fits their tradition.
I am a Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod (LCMS) pastor. Soldiers and Family members who identify as LCMS often seek worship and pastoral care that fit that confession. A Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod (WELS) member may attend an LCMS service and refrain from Communion, coming forward instead for a blessing. I have seen that in my own ministry. By contrast, an Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA) setting may not meet the expectations of an LCMS or WELS Soldier in matters of doctrine, marriage preparation, Communion practice, or the wording of prayers and creeds. Those distinctions are not minor. They affect whether a Soldier trusts the referral, receives the care sought, and believes the chaplain understands the faith they claim.
This matters in a special way for National Guard and Army Reserve chaplains. Active Duty members who live on or near post often know the area or find a congregation through the installation chapel network. Guard and Reserve Soldiers do not always have that advantage when they gather at an armory, reserve center, or habitual training area. Their chaplain needs enough census detail to know who is in the formation, which faith groups are present in meaningful numbers, and which clergy and houses of worship need a relationship before a crisis, drill weekend, or annual training event. This becomes particularly important when Battle Assembly falls on a significant day of religious observance for members of the unit. This is one example of information the chaplain is obliged to provide the commander in order to perform or provide religious support for these Soldiers. That knowledge shapes the Religious Support Plan. It informs worship support, referral networks, pastoral coverage, and command advice.
When the census collapses distinct groups into one broad label, the chaplain loses accuracy and effectiveness. A referral that looks correct on paper often fails in practice. The Soldier soon discovers this. The local clergy may have to explain why they will or will not officiate a same sex marriage, why they fence the altar, or why they do or do not use inclusive language in services, and so forth. That places strain on the Soldier, the clergy, and the chaplain. The Chaplain Corps should use precise terms precisely, because accurate identification strengthens trust, improves care, and makes the Religious Support Plan more faithful to the people we serve.
I’m also concerned about the possible loss of senior chaplain representation. Senior billets do more than occupy space on an organizational chart. They preserve access, advocacy, talent development, and strategic voice. In a Chaplain Corps that serves commanders, Soldiers, Families, and religious leaders across the Total Force, reducing senior representation carries real risk, especially for the Reserve Components where visibility already competes with other priorities. Positions such as Chief of Chaplains carry weight because of the breadth of responsibility they bear across the force.
With respect to CH(MG) Green, Jr., I do not have enough verified information to judge the reasons for his removal, and I will not speculate. I will say this. The timing of his departure alongside these other developments increases the need for a clear explanation. In the absence of that clarity, people fill the gap with rumor, assumption, and grievance. That is bad for trust and bad for the Chaplain Corps.
My position remains straightforward. Keep chaplain rank insignia. Preserve meaningful religious representation. Retain strong senior chaplain leadership. Before changes of this scale move from announcement to practice, give the field a clear written explanation, a disciplined implementation plan, and a timeline for execution. That is not resistance to change. That is how in the Profession of Arms we continue to be a profession that preserves trust while it changes.
Chaplain (Colonel) Rob Carter, U.S. Army (Retired)
