The Evolution of Army Policy on Religious Accommodation

The Army policy on religious accommodation is founded on Depart of Defense Instruction (DODI) 1300.17. Throughout my career, the DODI was called Accommodation of Religious Practices Within the Military Services. In 2020, the name changed to Religious Liberty in the Military Services. The change hints at the substantive changes it entailed. 

Since my background is with the Army, I will describe how Army policy evolved. When I entered active duty in 1991, here is how the regulations described the Army’s religious accommodation policy. 

The Army places a high value on the rights of its soldiers to observe tenets of their respective religions. It is the Army's policy to approve requests for accommodation of religious practices when they will not have an adverse impact on military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, health, safety, or discipline, or otherwise interfere with the performance of the soldier's military duties. However, accommodation of a soldier's religious practices cannot be guaranteed at all times but must depend on military necessity.

AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, 1988

In 2002, the language changed to the more affirmative “will approve” but the most substantial change in policy came in 2020 when the policy aligned fully with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act and a revised DODI. 

(1) The Army places a high value on the rights of its Soldiers to observe tenets of their respective religions or to observe no religion at all; while protecting the civil liberties of its personnel to the greatest extent possible, consistent with its military requirements.

(2) Pursuant to Section 2000bb of Title 42, United States Code and DoDI 1300.17, requests for religious accommodations from a military policy, practice, or duty that substantially burdens a Soldier’s (to include military prisoner’s) exercise of religion may be denied only when the military policy, practice, or duty furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling government interest. It is the Soldier’s responsibility to demonstrate he or she has a sincerely held religious belief and that the government policy, practice, or duty substantially burdens their religious exercise. If the Soldier demonstrates a sincerely held religious belief and a substantial burden to their religious exercise, the commander must then demonstrate how/why the government action furthers a compelling government interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that interest.

AR 600-20, Army Command Policy, 2020

Now, the relevant standards are:

  • Is the military department imposing a Substantial Burden on a Soldier’s exercise of religion?
  • Is the Substantial Burden in furtherance of a Compelling Government Interest?
  • Is the military department using the Least Restrictive Means to achieve the Compelling Government Interest?

The policy no longer states when the Army will approve requests; it describes when it can deny them, which is a substantial shift in the requirement. 

Previously, any adverse impact on military readiness could theoretically lead to denial. The Army’s implementation guidance, however, provided additional direction in a Department of the Army Pamphlet. (DA PAM 600-75, Accommodating Religious Practices, 1993) 

4-2.b. The following factors promote a standard procedure for resolving difficult questions involving accommodation of religious practices.

(1) The importance of military requirements, such as individual readiness, military readiness, unit cohesion, standards, health, safety, morale, and discipline.
(2) The religious importance of the accommodation to the requester.
(3) The cumulative impact of repeated accommodations of a similar nature.
(4) Alternative means available to meet the requested accommodation.
(5) Previous treatment of the same or similar requests, including treatment of similar requests made for other than religious reasons.

The 2020 version of AR-600-20 contains a similar list in paragraph 5-6.e.(2), but some of these factors are now controversial. 

I have heard lawyers argue, for example, that if the Army granted any similar accommodations or exemptions for any reason, it must grant every such request, even if the numbers run into the tens of thousands. This would rule out the “cumulative effect” component of Least Restrictive Means. 

More substantially, some lawyers argue that under the current “substantial burden” standard, the government cannot attempt to discern the religious importance of the accommodation. See the follow up article for more on the legal arguments regarding substantial burden.

This a part 1 of a series on Religious Accommodation in military services.

  1. The Evolution of Army Policy on Religious Accommodation
  2. The Meaning of Substantial Burden for Religious Accommodation
  3. The Elements of Religious Accommodation Requests
  4. The Chaplain’s Role in Requests for Religious Accommodation


Popular posts from this blog

If My People

Performative civil religion was on full display this week during the America Reads the Bible series of public Bible readings. The performance is supposed to commemorate the 250th anniversary of America’s Declaration of Independence. During the event, a series of politicians, MAGA supporters, and other ostensibly notable figures will read aloud the entire Protestant Bible in piecemeal fashion. The readers are using the King James Easy Read Bible, one of many obscure revisions of the KJV. The live readings take place at the Museum of the Bible in Washington, D.C. Tickets are $50. You can also register to watch a live stream. I cannot understood why anyone thinks merely reading the words of the Bible aloud will mean anything to God, have a positive effect on the nation, or draw anyone to Jesus. On Tuesday, President Trump read from Second Chronicle. The organizer's website features a recording of the president's reading on the home page of it's website and declares, As...
Read more

The Problem with Religious Affiliation Codes

Religious preference codes only exist to give commanders and chaplains a big, one-over-the-world view of the religious needs of the unit as a whole. They reside in the big Army database of personnel records as useful data points for generalized planning. They are not terribly useful for individual religious support where people don't always fit their labels. There, chaplains need to get to know their soldiers personally.  Soldiers entering the Army are overwhelmed by an avalanche of administrative requirements. It’s a normal human response to proceed through that process without much thought.  I found that Soldiers had often chosen their religious preference codes hastily, and the religion coded in the personnel database did not accurately reflect their religious identities.  The previous list of religious codes was long (5 single spaced pages) and not logically organized. It was a jumble of institutional identities and religious categories, most of which were going to be...
Read more

Is the President Saving Religion?

The president spoke to the National Prayer Breakfast on February 6, 2026. The event is sponsored by a Christian organization, but its official website says that it is open to people of all faiths. It is supposed to bring national leaders of faith together regardless of political affiliation.  As a Christian pastor, I would like to respectfully offer some reflections on the president’s 77 minute speech. This essay is long because the speech was long. What’s In the Speech What was the tone of the speech? Uplifting? Inspiring? Unifying? Spiritual? I would characterize it as political. It’s tone matched the tone of all his speeches, if you know what I mean. Most of it echoed themes and talking points common to every speech he makes. Little of it had any bearing on on the purpose of the assembly, and I can’t begin to address those parts of the speech. Simply put, I found much of it objectionable.  But what about the rest, the parts that talked about religion? In over 12...
Read more