A flicker of hope ignited in November when Captain Mark Bashaw’s reinstatement resonated across the military. For many service members unjustly separated during the COVID-19 era, it felt like a turning point – a promise of justice finally within reach. Major Mike Gary, a veteran of the Maine Army National Guard, dared to believe his own fight was nearing its end.
Gary received a pivotal letter in September. The Army National Guard had removed a damaging General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from his record, effectively erasing a serious accusation of misconduct. This wasn’t just a bureaucratic detail; it was a validation of his long-held belief that the charges were baseless, a ruling confirmed by the Army Review Boards Agency (ARBA). A public endorsement from War Secretary Pete Hegseth amplified the victory, signaling national attention and powerful support.
But within the state of Maine, a chilling reality began to unfold. While national figures celebrated a potential shift, Gary found himself facing what he calls “open defiance.” The path to restoration, once seemingly clear, was now blocked by administrative obstruction, forcing him to confront a frustrating and unexpected battle.
Documents reveal a disturbing pattern. In late November, a new DD214 – the certificate of release from duty – mysteriously appeared in Gary’s official record. This version designated his separation as a “Reduction in Force,” claiming he was deemed “Non-Retention on Active Duty.” This was a fabrication. ARBA had already ruled in his favor, ordering his reinstatement, retroactive promotion, and the removal of all damaging documentation.
The unauthorized DD214 was a blatant contradiction of the ARBA ruling. Gary immediately flagged it as “inaccurate” and “unlawfully posted,” pointing out that the positions he held still existed and no legitimate reduction in force had ever occurred. He turned directly to ARBA, requesting “alternative relief” – a direct appeal for intervention against what appeared to be a deliberate attempt to undermine justice.
Adding insult to injury, a denial memorandum from the Maine Army National Guard surfaced, issued *before* the ARBA ruling even arrived. It claimed Gary was ineligible for reinstatement under Executive Order 14184, despite his involuntary separation and the subsequent findings that the accusations against him were unfounded. This memo revealed a clear intention to disregard the proceedings entirely.
Gary argued that the Maine National Guard was actively disregarding federal directives and the policies of the Secretary of War. He emphasized that once derogatory information is nullified, the agency *must* act, unless a new, lawful basis for denial exists. In his case, the GOMOR, a discredited investigation, and allegations of bullying had all been dismissed – leaving no legitimate reason to deny his reinstatement.
He formally documented the legal implications of Maine’s refusal, outlining the governing principles of ARBA decisions. The Board’s finding that the Maine National Guard had “persisted in retaliating against him” only solidified his position: there was simply no lawful basis to continue the denial. He publicly questioned whether reinstatement was a genuine possibility for those who had won their cases, directing his plea to top Department of Defense officials.
Gary is now requesting ARBA grant “Alternative Relief,” seeking full reinstatement to active duty from June 2022, complete with back pay, benefits, and a retroactive promotion to Lieutenant Colonel. This would allow him to retire honorably after over twenty years of full-time service, a career trajectory unjustly interrupted. The newly formed Army Reinstatement Task Force has acknowledged the unusual breakdown, confirming that federal action has been stalled at the state level for months.
His case raises a fundamental question: can a state National Guard legally ignore a federal correction order issued under Title 10 authority? The answer could set a critical precedent for reinstatement cases across the nation. Whether ARBA will intervene, or if higher federal authority will be compelled to act, remains uncertain.
Beyond the legal complexities, Gary’s fight takes a heavy toll on his family. His wife, Jessica, is his unwavering support, a “spiritual rock” through years of legal battles and financial hardship. Their children are witnessing a profound test of faith, duty, and constitutional principle, a battle waged by their father for justice and the integrity of the system he served.
