Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

Troops Discharged Over COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal Sue US Government For
Billions In Lost Wages

Authored by Zachary Stieber via The Epoch Times

The former military members are seeking backpay, damages, and other
compensation.
A Navy member prepares a COVID-19 vaccine dose at a vaccination site
in a file image. (DOD Photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Carlos M.
Vazquez II via The Epoch Times)

Nicholas Bassen, an Army sergeant who was discharged in 2022 for not
getting a vaccine, wants compensation of at least $120,000.

The suits, filed in recent months, argue that when Congress compelled
the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) to rescind its COVID-19 vaccine
mandate, lawmakers carefully chose their wording.

"Congress expressly chose the term 'rescind', rather than more
customary language such as 'repeal', 'amend', or 'clarify', to direct
the DoD and the courts that the rescission should be applied
retroactively," one states.

To support their argument, lawyers pointed to U.S. Defense Secretary
Lloyd Austin's Jan. 10 memorandum, in which the retired general
rescinded the mandate and ordered military leaders to remove adverse
actions pertaining to vaccine refusal from the records of members
still serving.

Mr. Austin also said that former members could lodge petitions to
request corrections to their records.

"Secretary Austin acknowledged the Congressional directive to apply
the Rescission retroactively by, among other things, committing to
correct all of the paperwork and adverse personnel actions resulting
from non-compliance with the now voided mandate and orders issued
pursuant to it," one of the suits states.

"We think there's some pretty strong precedent in in our favor,
because when Congress repealed 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell' they use the
word 'repeal'. When they did this, they use the word 'rescind'," Dale
Saran, one of the attorneys representing the former members, told The
Epoch Times in an email.

"Everybody should be made whole again," Mr. Saran added later. "They
should be right back in the position they were before."

Mr. Saran estimated that, if the suits are successful, then billions
of dollars would go to former members.

He noted that the money was already appropriated by Congress for pay
and other compensation before the military discharged more than 8,000
personnel for refusing to receive a vaccine.

Tens of thousands of National Guard personnel, meanwhile, were denied
pay for being deemed out of compliance with the mandate.

All three class-action suits were filed in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

Former members interested in joining the suits can go to militarybackpay.com.
U.S. Army soldiers prepare Pfizer COVID-19 vaccines at the Miami Dade
College North Campus in North Miami on March 9, 2021. (Joe
Raedle/Getty Images)
Government Responds

Military leaders have resisted calls to award backpay to people
affected by the mandate, and in court filings the government urged
judges to dismiss the suits.

The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2023, which featured
the language on rescinding the mandate, does not mandate money being
awarded to affected members and former members, government lawyers
told the courts.

In a section of the act, Congress said that "the secretary of defense
shall rescind the mandate that members of the Armed Forces be
vaccinated against COVID-19."

"Nothing in the language of section 525 can be interpreted as
mandating compensation retroactively for service members affected by
the vaccination requirement retrospectively or prospectively," the
lawyers said in one filing. "Indeed, the language does not
contemplate, much less mandate, any compensatory rights for service
members."

Even if plaintiffs were correct, Congress did not intend to award
backpay, the lawyers said, referencing how a proposed amendment that
would have clearly awarded compensation to discharged members was
voted down.

"Such an amendment would have been unnecessary if the word 'rescind'
already required the military to provide the monetary relief the
plaintiffs seek," they said.

Judges in the cases will rule in the future on the government's
motions to dismiss. If successful, appeals could be lodged. If judges
rule against the government, then the cases will advance.

In a reply to the government, lawyers for the former members said that
the defense act was a "money mandating" law, pointing to court
decisions finding provisions such as "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" were
money-mandating provisions.

"To the extent Congress left any discretion, the 2023 NDAA, in
conjunction with the 2023 Appropriations Act, the Military Pay Act,
and other federal laws and regulations identified in the complaint,
are money-mandating because they provide clear standards for payment;
state the precise amounts for payment; and set forth eligibility
conditions for such payments," they said.
Other Restoration

In addition to awarding backpay, the courts should order the military
to correct the records of those discharged, according to the suits.

Lawyers for the former members also want the military ordered to
restore retirement benefits and points, which are earned during duty.

Efforts to take money from members, such as the recoupment of
enlistment bonuses, should also stop, the lawyers said.

"We've got clients who are getting debt collectors coming after them,"
Mr. Saran said. "For example, say you are a guy who did a four-year
hitch, and you got a signing bonus to reenlist, and you're
two-and-a-half years in when the mandate comes down. Then they kick
you out and they go, 'oh, you owe us that $25,000 signing bonus, too.'
So we got guys in collections."

Mr. Bassen, for example, has been asked by the military to repay his
signing bonus while a plaintiff in another one of the suits, Georgia
Army Guard Sgt. First Class Brian Taylor, was forced to pay health
insurance premiums after being barred from drilling and denied
compensation.

Mr. Taylor, lawyers said, "seeks a return of the money illegally
extracted from him by the U.S. government in [insurance] premiums, for
the indebtedness the government created by its own unconstitutional
acts and orders."