Next of Kin Notification Practices Past, Present, and Future1 Army 250th

By Chaplain (Captain) Justin Daniel, ThM, MDiv

Article published on: July 18, 2025 in the Chaplain Corps Journal

Read Time: < 3 mins

A wide view of Arlington National Cemetery during autumn, with rows of white headstones stretching across green grass covered in fallen leaves, and a large tree with orange foliage in the foreground.

 

The expectation of in-person next of kin (NOK) notification of an Army Soldier killed in the line of duty has become so ubiquitous today that few realize it is a relatively recent practice.2 U.S. Army Chaplains serve as a part of the notification team. This article examines the historical underpinnings of the modern NOK notification system and, specifically, the Chaplain’s role in it. The article closes with questions about the future feasibility of NOK notifications in the context of Large-Scale Combat Operations (LSCO).

There was no formal process of notifying NOK during the Revolutionary War.3 Due to the primitive nature of communication, family members were notified by letter, especially if the deceased was known by other men or by their commanding officer.4 Chaplains performed funerals and other duties such as praying with Soldiers who were at the brink of death or at their graves.5

There was no official Army NOK notification policy at the outset of the Civil War. Chaplains were involved in writing letters to the families of the deceased.6 In 1862, the Quartermaster General’s office published General Order No. 75 and Special Order No. 75, which enacted the “Graves Registration Service,” (GRS hereafter).7

The GRS oversaw NOK notification during World War I.8 The development of the telegraph and increasing use of telegrams between the Civil War and World War I made NOK notification much faster and more efficient.9 Chaplains continued to write letters to the families of Soldiers who were killed in action. The inter-war period between World War I and World War II saw the publication of important Army Regulations, with AR 30 series of 1924 establishing the GRS during war.10 The GRS fell short of expectations in the early fights of World War II.11 The Quartermaster General’s office was inundated with requests from NOK, “tell me about my boy.”12 As a result, a special board of officers was convened to accurately notify NOK.13 Early computers and telegrams were synchronized, which allowed thousands of notification telegrams to be mailed each day.14 While a far cry from today’s in-person notification, the strength of this system was expedient notification to NOK while limiting the manpower needed to conduct complex in-person notifications.

The modern casualty assistance programs were forged in the dredges of the Vietnam War. Mrs. Julia Moore prompted Army leadership to alter the practice of sending telegrams to NOK.15 Her complaints to the Pentagon about the callous telegram system resulted in Department of the Army Pamphlet 600-19, which was a “60-day trial test” on in-person NOK notification.16 The trial turned into doctrine, with the publication of AR 600-60. Chaplains are not specified in that early doctrine, although they were present during those first NOK notifications.

Today, Army Regulation requires in-person NOK notification in a timely manner with Chaplains playing a critical role. According to AR 638-8, the Casualty Notification Officer is to be accompanied by a Chaplain.17 This change over time has cemented the Chaplain’s role as intimately intertwined with NOK notifications and as a pillar in the core competency of honoring the fallen.

In-person NOK notification, particularly with the integrated presence of a Chaplain, is a relatively recent development in the continuum of U.S. mortuary affairs operations. The current system was conceived and refined within the context of counter-insurgency operations characterized by comparatively lower casualty rates than anticipated in future LSCO conflicts. The question, therefore, is not whether the current system is compassionate, but whether it remains sustainable in the face of the scale of casualties expected in a conflict with a peer or near-peer adversary.18

Drawing upon historical precedent, particularly the practices of World War I and World War II, alternative approaches may need to be considered. Expedient communication, leveraging available technology for timely updates while acknowledging the limitations of personalized in-person visits for every family, could become a necessary adaptation. In times of mass mobilization for war, capitalizing on civilian clergy or retired chaplains may also be a viable alternative to the current system. Honoring the fallen extends beyond the initial notification. Robust systems with comprehensive and ongoing support for grieving families are more scalable and ultimately more impactful in a high-casualty environment.

The Army can plan now to anticipate the potential future casualties during LSCO, ensuring that the commitment to honor the fallen remains central, even as the methods of initial notification may evolve.

Endnotes

1 This article is an abridgment of a forthcoming publication in Military Chaplaincy Review.

2 My special thanks and gratitude to Russell “Rusty” Rafferty, reference librarian, Ike Skelton Combined Army Research Library, for his assistance in finding many of the citations of this article. Additional thanks go to Lieutenant Colonel M. Patrick Stallings (1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment, Armor, Commanding) who provided the inspiration for this article.

3 The most famous Army manual of the Revolutionary War, Von Steuben’s “Blue Book,” does not speak to proper burial etiquette and no document establishes standard operating procedures of either burials or notifications. According to Robert Selig and Wade P. Catts, most were buried in pits with little fanfare during the heat of combat and as expediently as possible to avoid the stench and putrefaction of bodies. See “In the Morning We Began to Strip and Bury the Dead: A Context for Burial Practices During the American War for Independence,” Fields of Conflict vol. 3, (2019): 82.

4 Selig and Catts, “Bury the Dead,” 86.

5 See Caroline Cox, A Proper Sense of Honor: Service and Sacrifice in George Washington’s Army (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina Press, 2007), 173-198, who uses the term funerals with “full military honors,” which seems to suggest the presence of a Chaplain.

6 See The Civil War Letters of Joseph Hopkins Twichell: A Chaplain’s Story, eds. Peter Messent and Steve Courtney (Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 2006), 201.

7 Edward Steere, The Graves Registration Service in World War II, Q.M.C. Historical Studies 21 (Washington, DC: Historical Section, Office of the Quartermaster General, 1951), 3. My sincere thanks to Mr. Timothy M. Gilhool, Command Historian, U.S. Army Combined Arms Support Command & Fort Gregg-Adams, VA for providing this manuscript.

8 Steere, Graves Registration Service, 13.

9 See U.S. War Department, Correspondence Relating to the War With Spain and Conditions Growing Out of the Same, Including the Insurrection in the Philippine Islands and the China Relief Expedition, Between the Adjutant-General of the Army and Military Commanders in the United States, China, Puerto Rico, China, and the Philippine Islands, from April 15 1898, to July 30, 1902 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1902), 800-801.

10 Steere, Graves Registration Service, 16.

11 Steere, Graves Registration Service, 62. This is not to say that notifying the NOK was unimportant, even in the early days of the war. As Benjamin L. DeWitt notes, “The response time in casualty reporting and in notification of the emergency addressee was always an important factor to the Army” See Records Relating to Personnel Participation in World War II: American Military Casualties and Burials, Reference Information Paper 82 (Washington, DC: National Archives and Records Administration, 1993), 4.

12 Department of the Army, Department of the Army Pamphlet: Tell Me About My Boy (Washington, DC:1946), https://qmmuseum.army.mil/research/history-heritage/mortuary-affairs/Tell-Me-About-My-Boy.html.

13 Department of the Army, Army Regulation 600-550: Personnel – Deceased (Washington, DC: 1944).

14 For instance, on May 27, 1945, 7,278 notification telegrams were dispatched in a single day. See American Military Casualties and Burials, 4.

15. According to Army publications, Mrs. Moore seems to have been the catalyst that shifted opinion on notifications. For instance, see Army Garrison Ft Benning’s website, Meet the Moores, which reads, “Through her efforts, the Army changed its policy and had uniformed personnel deliver the notices” See https://home.army.mil/benning/About/meet-moores.

16. Department of the Army, Personal Notification of Primary Next of Kin in Death Cases (Washington, DC: January 20, 1966).

17. Army, Personal Notification, 4-4.

18. As an example, the III Corps Chaplain Directorate published a series of articles based on Warfighter Exercise 234, a LSCO-centric exercise. According to the data, the cumulative daily killed in action (KIA) was nearly 80, on par with the dead in World War I and World War II, but drastically lower than 15 per day of Vietnam and 1 per day of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Edrena Roberts remarks, “the comparison shows U.S. Army has not seen daily casualties at 82 KIAs and 267 WIAs [wounded in action] per day since World War II.” The conclusion is obvious: “the current method of casualty notifications will result in detrimental failure if the U.S. engages in a multi-domain conflict against a near-peer or peer adversary in a LSCO environment.” See Edrena Roberts, “Casualty Notifications at Home Station,” in Religious Support During Large-Scale Combat Operations (Leavenworth, KS: CALL, 2019): 24-28.

Authors

Chaplain (Captain) Justin Daniel, ThM, MDiv, serves as the 1st Squadron, 4th Cavalry Regiment Squadron Chaplain, 1ABCT, 1ID at Fort Riley, KS. He is ordained through the Independent Fundamentalist Churches of America, where he recently published an article for The Voice magazine, studied history and religion in his undergraduate program, and is a PhD Candidate (Old Testament) at Midwestern Baptist Theological Seminary. His research interests focus on Old Testament ethics, ritual theory, and he wrote his 2023 ThM thesis on the concept of kipper (atonement) in consecration contexts. He is supported by his wife, Caitlen (CJ) and daughter, Antoinette (Toni).