The situation surrounding Major Kim Bitter illustrates significant issues within military policies and the treatment of service members’ rights. Bitter, an exemplary Air Force officer, is now facing the loss of her retirement after a Board of Inquiry (BOI) abruptly closed the door on her career. According to Davis Younts, who has stepped forward to provide legal counsel for Bitter, “She has had an outstanding career. No issues. No misconduct.” These statements underline the gravity of her case, which centers on accusations that raise troubling questions about the rights of military personnel.
At the heart of this issue is Bitter’s request for a medical exemption from the COVID-19 vaccine due to a preexisting health condition. Despite her doctor advising against the shot, the military rejected her request. Her subsequent request for a religious accommodation met the same fate. Younts characterized this denial as a violation of major rights. Such issues are not merely administrative oversights; they point to a systemic failure to respect First Amendment rights within the military, particularly affecting service members who defend these very freedoms.
Younts notes that Bitter was just “eight points—two drill periods—away from having 20 good years of service.” This statement sets a stark backdrop to her situation, as she is shoved into a no points, no pay status for dissenting against the mandate. The actions against her appear to stem from a rigid adherence to vaccination policies, raising questions about the military’s handling of individual rights versus overarching mandates.
The Board of Inquiry itself remains in question. Younts remarked that it was evident to him and others involved that “no one in command or in JAG channels realized that dereliction of duty is not a legally sufficient basis to discharge someone.” These findings indicate a troubling disconnect between the allegations leveled against Bitter and the legal standards of military conduct. The accusation of dereliction of duty arose from a power outage at Travis Air Force Base, which inhibited her from completing assigned tasks, a circumstance beyond her control.
Moreover, Bitter faced serious accusations of drug abuse relating to a non-prescription substance advised by her physician. Younts emphasizes that this was not a controlled substance, yet the existence of this information in her medical records led to an unauthorized disclosure to her chain of command. This breach resulted in Bitter being interrogated without being informed of her rights, further complicating her situation and painting her in a negative light unjustly.
While the Board cleared Bitter of the charges of dereliction of duty and drug abuse, they did find her guilty of disobeying orders regarding the flu and typhoid vaccines. Younts pointed out the inconsistency of the BOI’s approach, noting that Bitter’s requests for both medical and religious exemptions were not processed. This raises serious ethical concerns about the neglect she faced regarding her rights and requests.
Being mere points away from retirement only to be forced from the service is devastating for any dedicated officer. Bitter’s situation embodies the struggle many face in balancing personal convictions with military obligations. Her resilience amid adversity shines through her actions, as she continues to promote military service to others despite her personal challenges.
Major Kim Bitter’s case is a striking example of the ongoing conflict between military policy and personal rights. With her dedication and commitment to service being called into question, the broader implications of such dismissals remain significant. This situation necessitates scrutiny of how military policies safeguard or infringe upon the rights of those who serve. The questions raised about command accountability and the protection of individual rights are crucial not just for Bitter but for the integrity of the military as a whole.
"*" indicates required fields
