The reinstatement of U.S. Army Captain Mark Bashaw at the Pentagon marked a significant moment in military history. Following that ceremony, momentum grew for other service members who faced wrongful separation during the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly Major Mike Gary, a former officer in the Maine Army National Guard. Gary’s anticipation for a successful reinstatement took a sharp turn as he revealed his ongoing struggle with administrative defiance.
In September, Gary received a letter stating that a general officer memorandum of reprimand (GOMOR) had been removed from his personnel records. This decision, celebrated by many as an indication of growing support, unfortunately led to new challenges for Gary. He described the situation, saying, “It’s open defiance. It’s administrative obstruction.” His battle has stretched over five years, yet the latest developments suggest that the obstacles have not diminished.
Documents show troubling new correspondence indicating that the Maine Army National Guard (MEARNG) is refusing to comply with federal directives aimed at addressing his situation. Gary discovered a new DD214 inserted into his record, carrying inaccurate information about his separation. “Neither of these characterizations matched the facts of my service,” he said, pointing to a narrative that doesn’t accurately reflect his removal. The new separation code suggested a reduction in force, a situation he firmly stated never occurred.
In his communications to the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA), Gary expressed his belief that the newly inserted DD214 was not only incorrect but unlawfully posted. His strong assertion, “A subordinate command appears able to disregard the Board’s directive,” underscores his growing frustration. He highlighted that the MEARNG had issued a denial memorandum even before receiving ARBA’s favorable ruling, revealing a troubling pattern of defiance.
Gary’s email to ARBA laid out the legal implications of Maine’s actions, citing that compliance is not optional when the basis for a soldier’s derogatory information has been nullified. He pointed out that the denial contrasts starkly with ARBA’s findings, which established that MEARNG continued to retaliate against him. “There’s no lawful basis remaining to deny reinstatement,” he stated clearly, encapsulating his predicament.
As he navigates this bureaucratic maze, Gary is left with uncertainty about his future. His query posted on social media reflects a deep-seated concern: “Is reinstatement a real thing for all who have come through the corrections board process with a win?” The reality is that for him, and potentially many others, the process remains unclear as challenges continue to rise.
Given the refusal to acknowledge a federal correction order, a pressing question looms: Can a state National Guard legally ignore directives issued under Title 10 authority? Gary’s case could set a crucial precedent for similar situations nationwide, ensuring that the outcome is closely watched and analyzed.
Throughout this tumultuous fight, Gary relies heavily on the support of his family, especially his wife, Jessica. He describes her as “a solid spiritual rock” who has been by his side through financial strains and continuous uncertainty. Their children, witnessing this fight unfold, have experienced firsthand the trials associated with military life and service. Gary regards this struggle not just as a legal battle but as “a test of faith, duty, and constitutional principle.”
As the situation unfolds, the question of whether Gary and others in similar circumstances will receive justice remains at the forefront. The tension between state and federal authority in this matter could redefine how service members are treated moving forward, ensuring that the rights of those who serve are upheld in accordance with the law.
"*" indicates required fields
