Troops Discharged Over COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal Sue US Government for Billions in Lost Wages

Military members are seeking backpay and restoration of benefits.

According to a trio of federal lawsuits, the United States military must compensate former service members who were discharged for refusing to receive a COVID-19 vaccine.

Former military personnel are suing for back pay, damages, and other monetary compensation.

Nicholas Bassen, an Army sergeant who was discharged in 2022 for failing to receive a vaccine, is seeking at least $120,000 in compensation.

The recent lawsuits contend that when Congress compelled the US Department of Defense (DoD) to rescind its COVID-19 vaccine mandate, lawmakers carefully chose their language.
“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,” it states.

Lawyers cited retired Gen. Lloyd Austin’s Jan. 10 memorandum, in which the retired general rescinded the mandate and ordered military leaders to remove adverse actions relating to vaccine refusal from the records of members still serving.

Mr. Austin also stated that former members could file petitions to have their records corrected.

“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,” according to one of the suit’s claims.

“We believe there is some pretty strong precedent in our favor because when Congress repealed ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,’ they used the word’repeal.'” “They used the word’rescind’ when they did this,” 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 later added. “They should be right back in the position they were before.”

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

He pointed out that the funds had already been appropriated by Congress for pay and other benefits before the military discharged over 8,000 personnel for refusing to receive a vaccine.

Meanwhile, tens of thousands of National Guard personnel were denied pay for failing to comply with the mandate.

The three class-action lawsuits were all filed in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

Former members who want to join the suits can visit militarybackpay.com.

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

According to government lawyers, the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2023, which included the language on rescinding the mandate, does not require money to be awarded to affected members and former members.

Congress stated in one section of the act, “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 attorneys said in a separate filing. “Indeed, the language does not contemplate, much less mandate, any compensatory rights for service members.”
Even if the plaintiffs were correct, Congress did not intend to award backpay, according to the lawyers, citing the defeat of a proposed amendment that would have clearly awarded compensation to discharged members.

“Such an amendment would have been unnecessary if the word ‘rescind’ already required the military to provide the monetary relief the plaintiffs seek,” the lawyers said.

Judges in the cases will rule on the government’s motions to dismiss in the future. Appeals could be filed if the case is successful. If the judges rule against the government, the cases will move forward.

Lawyers for the former members responded to the government by claiming that the defense act was a “money mandating” law, citing court decisions holding that 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 went on to say.

Other Restoration

According to the lawsuits, in addition to awarding backpay, the courts should order the military to correct the records of those discharged.
Lawyers for the former members want the military to be ordered to restore retirement benefits and points earned while on duty.

Attempts to take money from members, such as recoupment of enlistment bonuses, should also be stopped, according to the lawyers.

“We’ve got clients who are getting debt collectors coming after them,” Mr. Saran went on to say. “For example, suppose you did a four-year hitch and received a signing bonus to reenlist, and you’re two-and-a-half years in when the mandate expires. Then they fire you and say, ‘Oh, you owe us that $25,000 signing bonus, too.’ So we’ve got some guys in collections.”

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

Mr. Taylor, in the words of his lawyers, “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.”