AIR FORCE DESTROYS Hero's Career For Daring to Question Vaccine Mandate!

A distinguished Air Force officer is facing the abrupt loss of her retirement, a consequence stemming from a recent Board of Inquiry. The case highlights a troubling pattern of disregard for the constitutional rights of those who serve.

Davis Younts, a retired Air Force lieutenant colonel and legal counsel for Maj. Kim Bitter, describes her career as “outstanding,” devoid of any negative marks or questions regarding her character. He emphasizes a spotless record built on integrity and dedicated service.

The core of the issue revolves around the military’s stance on First Amendment rights, seemingly suspended for those who pledge to defend the Constitution. Maj. Bitter’s ordeal began during the COVID-19 pandemic when she sought medical and religious exemptions from mandatory vaccination.

Despite a physician’s advice against the shot due to a pre-existing condition, and the subsequent denial of her religious accommodation request, the military refused her exemptions. She was just eight points – the equivalent of two drill periods – away from achieving twenty years of service and a well-deserved retirement.

Initially, Maj. Bitter was placed on a “no points, no pay” status for two and a half years as punishment for opposing the mandate, a mandate later deemed “unlawful as implemented.” This status effectively blocked her path to retirement, despite being allowed to return to duty.

Further complications arose when she was again penalized with “no points, no pay” status for objecting to flu and typhoid vaccines, ultimately leading to her discharge from the Air Force Reserve. This set the stage for the recent Board of Inquiry.

The Board accused Maj. Bitter of “dereliction of duty, unlawful drug use, and violating a lawful order” regarding the flu and typhoid vaccines. However, a critical flaw emerged: the legal insufficiency of “dereliction of duty” as grounds for discharge, a point seemingly overlooked by command and JAG channels.

The “dereliction of duty” charge stemmed from an inability to complete a task during a power outage at Travis Air Force Base, rendering access to necessary systems impossible. The accusation of drug use was equally dubious, based on a substance recommended by a physician and voluntarily disclosed in her medical records.

This information was then improperly disclosed by a military provider to her chain of command, leading to an interrogation without proper advisement of her rights and a false portrayal of drug abuse. The Board ultimately cleared her of both the dereliction of duty and drug abuse accusations.

Despite finding no evidence of wrongdoing beyond her refusal of the flu and typhoid vaccines, the Board recommended separation from the Air Force with an Honorable Discharge. Crucially, Maj. Bitter had submitted both medical and religious accommodation requests for these vaccines, requests that were simply ignored by her chain of command.

To be so close to a lifetime of service culminating in retirement – just two drill weekends away – only to be forced out after unwavering dedication is a stark injustice. It raises questions about the values the military seeks to uphold and the kind of service it expects from its members.

Even amidst these challenges, Maj. Bitter continued to encourage others to join the military, embodying the character and integrity expected of a military officer. Her case serves as a cautionary tale, highlighting a troubling disconnect between the ideals of service and the realities faced by those who defend them.