Army Chief Warrant Officer 3 Brandon Budge has dedicated nearly two decades to flying Black Hawk helicopters. His exemplary service is now threatened due to his principled stand against the military’s COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Before the requirement was imposed in 2021, Budge had an unblemished record of performance and commitment. However, he now faces dire consequences for refusing the vaccine on moral grounds, raising serious questions about the treatment of service members who voice their dissent.
After declining the shot, Budge was grounded for 18 months, hindering his ability to operate aircraft and losing his promotion status. He received a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) and underwent a Flying Evaluation Board, which found no wrongdoing on his part. Despite this, the repercussions continue to mount, resulting in significant financial strain, with costs estimated at nearly $80,000 in legal fees and lost wages combined. “This entire debacle has cost my family nearly $40,000 in legal fees and nearly $40,000 in lost pay on top of all the emotional and psychological stress,” Budge expressed, clearly feeling the weight of this upheaval.
In discussions about Budge’s situation, Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George allegedly encouraged Budge to petition the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR), promising a resolution. Yet, despite this assurance and advocacy from various quarters, including journalist J.M. Phelps, nothing substantial has been done to alleviate his predicament. Budge now faces an exit from the Army on October 6, 2025, solely because of his refusal to comply with what some, including the Defense Secretary, have labeled an experimental and unlawful mandate.
The circumstances surrounding Budge’s case appear particularly troubling. Rumors suggest that his previous actions—his outspoken stance during the COVID era—may have led to a campaign against him driven by motivations beyond his refusal of the vaccine. Reflecting on his ordeal, Budge stated, “Nobody can pass judgment on a situation like I’ve gone through until they’ve stood in my shoes.” He described being coerced and isolated in a bid to suppress his dissent, adding, “I was expected to put everything aside, including my own health and the health of my family, while they used coercive tactics.” His determination to challenge the system has cost him dearly, yet he is unwilling to compromise his principles.
Budge’s case raises critical issues about accountability within military leadership. His sentiments resonate with many who feel that those enforcing the mandate face no consequences for their actions. “All the while, those that implemented it illegally are not being held accountable,” he noted, illustrating a perceived injustice within the ranks.
Retired U.S. Army Lt. Col. Darin Gaub has voiced strong support for Budge, asserting that he has been “nothing less than assaulted,” while those responsible for the mandate remain unscathed. Gaub, who led Budge during two combat tours, described him as a “fighter” who embodies the qualities needed for military service: integrity and resilience in the face of unfair treatment. He emphasized, “But isn’t that the kind of person we want in our nation’s military—one that has the courage to do what it takes to stand against tyranny and unlawful orders?”
Gaub expressed concern over the broader impact of such policies on military readiness, especially as Army Aviation grapples with a significant talent shortage. He believes Budge is precisely the kind of experienced personnel that should be retained, pointing out, “You need to be bending over backwards to keep people like this, not bending over backwards to get rid of them.” His argument highlights the failure to recognize and uphold the values of service members who prioritize duty over guidelines they consider unjust.
The treatment Budge has received raises alarming questions about the standards of professionalism within the military’s chain of command. Gaub argues, “You’ve taken Budge from a patriotic officer serving in the military, trying to defend his nation, and turned him into a target…why would you hold him accountable for how an officer should act in this situation and not hold the people accountable who forced the illegal mandate on him?”
According to Gaub, Budge’s experiences reflect a troubling pattern within the military, where service members are punished for resisting potentially harmful directives. He insists that Budge’s situation is indicative of a larger crisis affecting many service members caught between their commitment to duty and their personal health decisions.
As the timeline for Budge’s retirement approaches, one cannot help but ponder whether there will be an intervention at the level of Army Chief George or Defense Secretary Hegseth. The fate of Budge’s career may hinge on whether external pressures prompt a reconsideration of his circumstances.
In an era when individual rights frequently clash with organizational mandates, the plight of service members like Brandon Budge serves as a stark reminder of the personal toll that results from standing firm against perceived injustices. The ongoing discourse about his treatment challenges the military establishment to reflect on its values and how it treats its most dedicated members.
"*" indicates required fields
