The Air Force’s Vindictive War on Lance Castle: Ruthless Retaliation After a COVID Mandate Refusal and Full Acquittal at Court-Martial, Part Three

Image: Courtesy of Lance Castle, Cell Extraction Clip, April 11, 2023, at Cannon Air Force Base

Part One and Part Two of this three-part series revealed how Staff Sergeant Lance Castle’s religious objection to the COVID-19 shot triggered systematic retaliation.

They believed they could act without impunity, resulting in harm for Castle and his family by falsifying his military records, pursuing wrongful prosecution, and manipulating acquitted dispositions. The actions inflicted physical injury and irreparably dismantled his career and livelihood for his family—all while senior officials knowingly enforced an unlawful mandate.

Even after his initial full acquittal, years later, all those entries still follow him. The Air Force, to which he has nearly given two decades of his life, is still writing their corrupt and fictitious narrative. They stripped his rank multiple times. They cut his pay multiple times. His security clearance was permanently revoked. The paperwork that had been used to confine him the first time in April 2023 remained in his record and was used against him for his second arrest and second trial despite Judge Vicki Marcus finding every charge from that arrest unproven.

Four months after Castle’s full acquittal, in a January 2024 Team Treatment Meeting with Vazquez’s superior, Col. Barry Roche, First Sgt Tanner Ike, Chief Jessica Baldwin, and Castle’s therapist from San Antonio’s Laurel Ridge Treatment Center, Vanessa Ramirez, Roche referenced “a lot of other paperwork” and treated the court-martial acquittal as limited, distinguishing it from other administrative matters that Sgt. Michael Carey, Capt. Liam Lawrence, and Lt. Col. Enrique Vazquez flooded Castle’s records with.

Castle and the Laurel Ridge assigned therapist Vanessa Ramirez asked why telework had been denied despite recommendations from Cannon Air Force Base mental health provider referrals, to include multiple San Antonio mental-health providers. They also asked why Vazquez stated that Roche was the one denying them. Roche responded that he isn’t sure of the conversation he had with Vazquez about it. He continued that he was “not sure how [Castle] would be productive at all teleworking.”

Chief Jessica Baldwin stated the priority was to “minimize contact between any of the LRS (Logistics Readiness Squadron) personnel and Airman Castle” and that “looking outside of the MSG (Mission Support Group) was the primary focus just because of any interaction or potential interaction with anybody that may have not had a great interaction prior to his acquittal.”

Roche told Castle he had “zero opinion one way or the other” on the prior case, that the two-year track history “could have been for right or wrong,” and that “maybe that paperwork is wrong.”

He added that there had to be “give and take on both sides” and that he hoped Castle would get “a fresh start in the OPS (Operations) group and I show them that LRS was wrong.”

Ramirez noted the “deep level of mistrust” and “resentment towards command.” Castle replied that the judge had already found the underlying conduct unproven and that the damage—three months of confinement, missing his son’s birth, and $30,000 in legal costs—had already been done. The meeting produced no accommodations and no formal acknowledgment of the acquittal’s effect on the prior restrictions.

Just two weeks later, Ike told Castle that Roche’s plan to have him moved to the OPS group had “fell through.” Baldwin, Ike, and Castle discussed this an hour later, and they blamed Castle’s lack of security clearance as the main cause, while also giving minimal weight to his attendance at LRTC, which was the reason for his lack of security clearance, and to Vazquez’s promise that he would follow up post-trial.

All of this was a lie, Castle claimed, their objective finally realized. They moved Castle right under Roche and Baldwin for the time being, not more than 15 feet away from both of their offices. They labeled this move as an “alternate duty location,” a designation Castle characterized as an effort to gaslight him through the process.

Capt. Leeza Tirado, Castle’ s military attorney, submitted repeated requests— for a transfer to another base, assignment to a different squadron, or the telework accommodation Ramirez at Laurel Ridge had recommended. Each was denied. First Sgt Tanner Ike’s response was blunt: if Castle were to remain in a quiet corner or work from home, he didn’t deserve a paycheck.

This was in direct regard to Ramirez’s explanation to him and Vazquez that Castle needed to remain away from his aggressors, them.

In April 2024, Castle wrote Col. Jeremy Bergin, describing a Record of Individual Counseling (RIC) issued on April 9 from Vazquez for two missed behavioral-health appointments. He had requested a Letter of Counseling instead of a RIC so he could obtain three duty days to investigate and prepare a rebuttal. Both Ike and Vazquez denied the request.

Castle refused to sign the RIC, stating that a signature would be read as an admission of guilt rather than simple acknowledgment. He asked Bergin to investigate what he characterized as continuing retaliatory actions by Vazquez, Carey, Lawrence, Roche, and Ike, and he attached trial excerpts and the December 2023 TTM recording in which Vazquez had made the statements later contradicted at trial.

No formal inquiry or relief followed the email. Castle called his on-base therapist, Samantha Morales, who relayed to Castle that he had no missed medical appointments with her. Castle said, “Vazquez was back to it, creating another falsified paper trail.”

On May 1, 2024, Castle sent a memorandum directly to AFSOC Commander Lt. Gen. Tony D. Bauernfeind. The memorandum named more than 30 individuals across the 27 SOLRS (Special Operations Logistics Readiness Squadron), 27 SOMSG (Special Operations Mission Support Group), the Mental Health Clinic, True North, and Security Forces leadership, and alleged a continuing pattern of retaliation that had begun with the COVID-19 shot refusal and had continued after the September 2023 acquittal.

Castle wrote that he had already emailed Wing Commander Col. Jeremy Bergin on April 13, 2024, and that Bergin had replied he “intends to meet with both the 27 SOMSG/CC and 27 SOLRS/CC to discuss my concerns.”

When Castle asked CMSgt Baldwin on April 30 whether that meeting had occurred, she said she did not know. The memorandum asked Bauernfeind to examine the chain-of-command actions that had produced the second confinement, the still-unreinstated security clearance, and the administrative paperwork issued after the acquittal. No formal response or investigation from AFSOC followed the memorandum.

On May 2, 2024, Col. Bergin, the 27th Special Operations Wing commander, replied directly to Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind. Bergin wrote that he was “actively engaged” with squadron, group, and medical leadership to evaluate Castle’s mental health upon his return from convalescent leave at the end of May and to assign duties that complied with any restrictions or accommodations the treatment team assessed as required.

Bergin then summarized the September 2023 court-martial for Bauernfeind. He noted that Castle had been acquitted of all charges, then stated that at trial “SrA Castle’s defense team focused significantly on concerns about Castle’s mental health that they argued were ignored or inadequately addressed by leadership. They also argued that his mental health issues were the root cause of his alleged criminal behavior.”

He added that a June 2023 sanity board found Castle did not have a severe mental disease or defect at the time of the alleged misconduct, could appreciate the nature of his conduct, and could cooperate in his defense.

Bergin further reported that Castle had missed significant duty time due to medical appointments, convalescent leave, and in-patient treatment, and that he was set to return on 28 May 2024 after shoulder surgery. He stated that on April 5, 2024, he and the wing command chief had met with the group and squadron commanders, the medical group commander, and the staff judge advocate.

During that meeting, the group commander indicated Castle would be referred to mental health for evaluation upon his return based on Castle’s stated concern that leadership was ignoring his condition. Medical leadership agreed to give the chain of command clear guidance on duty restrictions and any necessary accommodations. The group, Bergin wrote, agreed to maintain open communication “to ensure SrA Castle is adequately cared for, while upholding standards.”

Bergin’s upward report framed the first trial as a case in which mental-health concerns were central to the defense and had already been addressed by a sanity board that found no severe disease or defect. It also presented the command as already coordinating a plan for evaluation and accommodations upon Castle’s return. The subsequent record shows that evaluation occurred (the May–June 2024 CDE, or Command Directed Evaluation, directed by Bergin), that the resulting diagnoses were not followed by the post-evaluation treatment-team meeting Castle repeatedly requested, and that the accommodations discussed in the April 5 meeting were never implemented.

On May 6, 2024, Castle would respond to Bauernfeind’s email, stating to him regarding Vazquez:

“The flagrant, consistent, and significant negligence of Lt Col Vazquez’s repeated lack of judgment, and of his consistent RETLIATORY actions towards me and my family is a life-threatening matter. His egregious acts of misconduct are now unequivocally and unmistakably proven in a court of law from his very own testimony under oath. The 27 SOMSG group commander, Col Barry Roche, negligently and blatantly condones his actions and yet continues to remain complicit, to include 1st Sgt Ike. Lt Col Vazquez REFUSES to take accountably for his actions, as he has consistently tried to place blame on the mental health clinic, as the names Major Wiley, Major Negrey, and Mrs. Ericka Bond have been mentioned by him on a multitude of occasions throughout my court martial. This entire criminal scandal has been originally orchestrated by MSgt Carey, Michael, the former flight CC for Lt Col Vazquez, Capt. Lawrence, Liam, and former TSgt Lipp, Benjamin, (now in the U.S. Army.), that labeled me an Insider Threat in the wake of my refusal to receive the Covid 19 vaccine.

This now 2 year and 8 month back and forth formidable confliction between Lt Col Vazquez and I, to include various Cannon AFB leadership and agencies, has been most daunting and hellishly tormenting on me and my family’s physical and mental health, which has been proven to materialize from my vaccine refusal from my Christian beliefs. As Lt Col Vazquez is set to retire soon, he leaves this nightmare of a burden for numerous people to clean up to include yourself, as we are now seeing sir. I will have my revamped Article 138 informal complaint for Lt Col Vazquez this week, and if he denies once again, I will immediately forward it to yourself as in accordance with AFI 51-505, paragraph 5.1.1.”

On May 31, 2024, the day after Castle returned from convalescent leave, a treatment team meeting was held at Cannon’s mental health clinic. Present were Maj. Samuel Oldham, a psychologist at the clinic; his therapist, Samantha Morales; then-Capt. Nalisha Abdullai; MSgt.  Matthew Calhoun; and Chief Baldwin’s successor, Chief Mark Marberg.

The meeting was audio-recorded by Castle and remains one of his most key pieces of evidence. During the discussion of Castle’s September 2023 acquittal, Oldham offered an analogy that treated his not-guilty verdict as incomplete. Castle said Oldham compared it to a person who smokes cigarettes: “you cannot prove that someone does not smoke, and if they do smoke, you also cannot prove that they do not.” The implication was that the full acquittal on every charge did not settle whether the underlying conduct had occurred.

No notes from this treatment team meeting appear in Castle’s medical record. The meeting took place in the middle of a two-day Command Directed Evaluation (CDE) that Bergin testified that he directed. Abdullai, who had signed the CDE order the day before, told Castle that until the evaluation results came back and they knew what he was diagnosed with, she had nothing further for him.

The post-evaluation treatment team meeting was never held, despite Castle’s repeated written and oral requests. In fact, five or more multi-disciplinary team meetings (MDTs) were held for two months behind Castle’s and his attorney’s back. Castle was diagnosed with “delusional disorder” by Maj. Jennifer Minarick, working with Bergin, at the end of his two-day CDE. This diagnosis, along with others, was now used against him to discredit him to every superior above Bergin who would have Castle’s file quickly passed over their desk.

On June 25, 2024, in a recorded encounter with Col. Churchill, Castle raised the contradiction he had been living with: a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) was pending because he was considered unfit for duty, yet he was being ordered to report back to work with no accommodations listed for four of the five diagnoses from the CDE that Churchill said he did not know.

Castle questioned the logic, and Churchill replied that those were “absolutely good concerns” and questions he had as well, and that the command was working with medical experts to take care of him. Castle answered that he did not have a provider at the mental health clinic.

Recordings from his prior provider stated that no one wanted to take him on because they feared for their license. Churchill’s response was that taking care of him meant making sure he had access to help. Castle told him he did not have that access.

The exchange occurred while Churchill was issuing orders that contained no accommodations for the CDE diagnoses. Castle later cited the conversation, along with the recording restriction Churchill imposed and the lack of any post-CDE treatment team meeting, as part of the reason he could not return to his assigned place of duty.

On June 26, 2024, Castle texted Col. Bergin in a group chat that included his first sergeant. He wrote that after the written orders he had received the day before from Col. Churchill, and after months of raising concerns that went unanswered, he could “no longer step a single foot on your base ever again as of this moment forward.”

He stated he was acting “in good faith and with zero intent to be defiant and disrespectful.”

In the same message, Castle explained why. He said he had fully recorded his encounter with Churchill the day before (with Churchill’s awareness) and that Churchill had not known four of the five diagnoses from the CDE. He described living in extreme distress and anxiety, with his family worrying each time he drove onto base that he would be re-arrested, and with no accommodations in place for the CDE diagnoses. He wrote that if he were arrested off base, he would “peacefully and lawfully comply immediately,” would “not run,” would “not hide,” and would attend any court-martial. He offered to email and text Bergin daily with his whereabouts and an update on his symptoms.

Churchill’s order the day before had barred Castle from recording further interactions. That restriction was significant because Castle had previously been charged by then-Lt. Col. Vazquez in connection with a recording; the charge had not survived the first trial.

Castle’s first sergeant, MSgt Calhoun, had separately told him that if he were caught recording, he could be arrested. Castle viewed the recording restriction as removing one of the few means he still had to document what occurred in meetings with leadership.

When the command later used the June 26 text to support pretrial confinement as a flight risk, the surrounding sentences were omitted. The portion that remained was the single clause about no longer stepping foot on base. The rest of the message—the explicit statement that he was not being defiant, the explanation tied to the missing accommodations and the recording restriction, the pledge to comply with any arrest, and the offer of daily location updates—was not included in the materials presented to justify continued confinement.

Bergin replied that further correspondence should go through official channels and that Castle remained under the lawful command of the squadron and group commanders. The partial quote was later cited as evidence that Castle presented a risk of flight.

On July 17, 2024, Castle emailed Col. Robert Johnston, the new convening authority and successor to Col. Bergin. He requested that a post-Command-Directed Evaluation Treatment Team Meeting be scheduled. He noted that the CDE had been completed, that no formal post-CDE TTM had been held, and that the absence of the meeting left the command without a documented multidisciplinary review of the results before further duty decisions were made. He asked that the meeting be conducted and that he be allowed to participate.

AFI 44-172, Mental Health (13 November 2015, certified current 23 April 2020), paragraphs 3.4 and 3.4.2, requires a documented multidisciplinary Treatment Team Meeting when CDE results affect a member’s duty status, fitness for duty, or the need for accommodations. Johnston did not schedule the meeting. Days later, Castle’s first sergeant relayed that the Medical Group commander had denied the request for a post-CDE TTM. The March 2025 medical record contains no entry for any post-CDE Treatment Team Meeting

Interestingly, on the heels of these events, the Department of War itself would confirm what Castle had argued from the very beginning. In the wake of President Donald Trump’s Executive Order 14182 and Secretary of War Pete Hegseth’s announcement on X on April 23, 2025, regarding additional guidance, the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (OSD) Personnel & Readiness issued a service-wide memorandum on May 7, 2025. The memo explicitly branded the COVID-19 shot mandate as “unlawful as implemented” and described it as “an unfair, overbroad, and completely unnecessary burden.”

On May 8, 2026, Hegseth further declared the resulting separations to be unjust discharges and asserted that the mandate had been wrongfully forced onto the nation’s warfighters, like Castle.

As the War Department continues to grapple with the negative repercussions of the mandate, even the public face of the federal COVID response has now refused to answer questions under oath. On July 29, 2026, Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before a Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee chaired by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY). He invoked the Fifth Amendment more than 100 times, declining to answer any questions about the origins of the virus, gain-of-function research, or his own prior statements.

Yet, ten months after Castle’s full acquittal, the new successors to Castle’s chain of command arrested him again.

The Air Force Criminal Justice Information Center later recorded the disposition as “not criminally prosecuted.” He was locked up for 8.5 months. During that confinement he missed the birth of his second son. His fiancée was alone again. The same pattern that had followed the first arrest—charges that did not match the facts, confinement that outlasted the evidence, and a birth he did not attend—repeated itself under a new set of commanders.

Major Brent Escay had taken command in early July 2024. He had never met Lance Castle. The first time he saw him was months later on the witness stand. On July 19, 2024, Escay, while across the country on TDY at a commander’s class on how to lead, and being influenced by the [Cannon Air Force Base] Staff Judge Advocate (SJA) from Castle’s first trial, Lt. Col. Sean McGarvey, ordered Castle into pretrial confinement and kept him there until trial—nearly nine months.

At the arraignment, Escay said the confinement rested on four grounds:

One: Carey, Castle’s previous supervisor who recommended the BOLO that directly led to his first arrest, stated that he suffered extreme anguish from being copied on Castle’s emails to superior command, to include text message conversations between Castle and the wing commander, Col. Jeremy Bergin, about his retaliatory concerns from his direct chain of command. Escay stated since Carey being in a deployed one deep position, “not to be put into a bad mental… headspace” I did see that as a factor affecting him. That factor being Castle not arrested.

Two: Escay referenced one of Castles emails sent to Churchill of how he felt during Churchill’s Article 15 issuance, “and trying to hold in some frustration and agitation on that, and then that did also go into the calculation given that there could be potential escalation of things.”

Three: Escay referred to Castle’s previous assault charges from trial one, stating “as well as what I’ve heard, the incident that happened prior to pretrial confinement, an altercation with some defenders previously.” What he was referencing was Castle’s strip search against his will. It was during this search that Castle charged with assault for allegedly “striking” security force officer Deadrick Kelly’s knee (of which previously was written that Castle “dislocated” the officer’s knee) during pretrial confinement, not before.

This also includes the very next day’s infamous cell extraction of which he was charged with assault for striking security force officer Mason Poteet’s nose (previously written as Castle “broke” his nose)—again during pretrial confinement and not before.

There were no incidences with security forces and Castle prior to pretrial confinement. Yes, Escay gives testimony that was demonstrably false.

Under questioning from Castle’s defense attorney, Capt. Leeza Tirado, asked Escay, “sir, he is not charged with assault, correct?” Escay responded, “not that I recall.” Escay determined that these three incidents constituted as “serious criminal misconduct.”

Four: In Escay’s memorandum for Castle’s rearrest, he stated that Castle’s emails to superior command — including AFSOC commanders, Lt. Gen. Tony Bauernfeind and Lt. Gen. Michael Conley; then-Secretary of the Air Force Melissa Dalton; the Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Gen. David Allvin; and multiple members of Congress—raising the same retaliation issues, were “harassing.” For Castle, Churchill was clearly the one behind this and was pressuring Escay to act on his behalf.

Previous emails led Bergin to testify he had directed a preliminary inquiry into Vazquez. Three hours after stepping down from the stand, Castle said, Bergin emailed his staff judge advocate, retracting the very statement he had just detailed under oath.

This retraction email was never used to challenge the testimony. Escay’s 72-hour memorandum cited the emails, of which he told Castle that his concerns were “really good concerns” and a single sentence from a June 26 text, “cannot step foot on CAFB”, while omitting all context as to what the text continued to say.

Escay later said he relied on second-hand reports from Col. Churchill, SMSgt Ike, and MSgt Calhoun. He retained the power to release Castle at any time and did not use it. Castle remained in confinement until the second court-martial, 8.5 months later.

The same higher command that received the Bergin update—which noted the acquittal but made no mention of the command decisions that led to the charges—was also, on dozens of occasions, copied on emails and formal complaints filed by Castle. None prompted an official amendment to the record.

In March 2026, nearly two and a half years after the full acquittal, Castle received formal notice from the Air Force Criminal Justice Information Center that the official dispositions recorded in the National Crime Information Center, the Interstate Identification Index, the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, and related Defense Department databases did not accurately reflect the not-guilty findings. The records had been entered in a manner that obscured or altered the true outcome of the first court-martial. He had no knowledge of the falsified dispositions until two years after the verdict.

By the time of the second confinement, Castle was less than one year shy of retirement. The financial consequences were significant. Still, he said the choice to keep pushing back was “non-negotiable.” The same religious objection that started the first set of charges was still the line he would not cross, even after a full acquittal, a second arrest, and the fact that he missed the births of two of his children.

The second court-martial produced a conviction at the hands of Judge Maj. Nathan Royer on March 25, 2025, who Castle stated “lacked all due diligence.” Months before his trial, Castle directly sent Royer filed IG complaints, multiple De Novo Reviews, an affidavit for record, and a cease and desist. RCM 902(a) mirrors the federal disqualification rule in 28 U.S.C. § 455: a military judge must step aside in any proceeding where impartiality might reasonably be questioned.

This is an objective test — the question is whether a reasonable person, knowing all the circumstances, would conclude that the judge’s impartiality could be questioned. Royer did not recuse himself. Castle explained to his defense attorneys that he believed Royer was biased towards his chain of command, initially by continuing pretrial confinement for Castle despite his own evidence. Castle believed that Royer had to at least find him guilty on at least one specification to not raise any red flags with continuing his pretrial confinement, if found fully acquitted. Castle said his defense attorneys ignored his concerns.

Royer sentenced him to six months total confinement time, even though Castle had just served 8.5 months waiting for this trial, reduced his rank to E-1 (the lowest enlisted pay-grade), and asserted a bad-conduct discharge that is now on appeal. Castle remains on appellate leave with no pay. Ironically enough, under Article 58b, Castle said he should have been getting one-third “residual pay” since May 1, 2025. He has received $0.

Castle said the SJA McGarvey drafted a Memorandum for Record (MFR) that he would receive no compensation, a direct contradiction of the provisions outlined in Article 58b.

What’s more, the official dispositions in the federal criminal databases still do not accurately reflect the documented arrestable offenses, the arrest date, and abuse of so-called probable cause.

Dozens of emails reviewed by J.M. Phelps that Castle has sent to the Chief of Staff of the Air Force and the Secretary of the Air Force, including Article 138 complaints against commanding officers, and over 70 DOD, SAF, and AFSOC IG complaints to MSgt Nicholas Johnsen, Mr. Gary Carruthers, MSgt Vernard Manis, Col. Patrick Westmoreland, and Maj. Tiffany Bergending. These Inspector General complaints have produced not a single correction.

Rather, emails that were considered protected communication have been used against him, and labeled as “harassment” to these superior officers.

Castle’s appeal is the only remaining formal process, now in the hands of multiple judges at the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals (AFFCA). The exaggerated record that followed him out of the first courtroom is still the record that follows him now.

Higher headquarters possesses emails, Article 138 complaints, and Inspector General filings related to the matter. To date, none have yielded orders to correct Castle’s record, restore his security clearance, or retract “insider-threat” designations linked to his refusal of the COVID-19 vaccine. The appeal represents his final procedural recourse; his record not only remains uncorrected, but reprehensibly false.

Those records are right there, waiting for review. J.M. Phelps managed to examine them—why can’t Air Force personnel do as much? The September 2023 transcript shows Castle was found not guilty of every charge from Vazquez’s apparent abuse of his authority and knowing “probable cause,” is whatever he determines it to be.

Most recently, Castle’s military appellate lawyer flagged a charging error from the second trial. Two offenses had been charged under Article 92 when the 2024 Manual for Courts-Martial said they should have been charged under Article 90. If those convictions were to be set aside, the Government is legally able to re-charge the same conduct under Article 90, where the maximum punishment is a year in confinement, a Bad Conduct Discharge, and reduction to E-1.

The lawyer said the chance of a retrial looked low and asked whether Castle still wanted the issue raised. Castle told him to raise it.

The Bad Conduct Discharge and reduction to E-1 were part of the single sentence that followed all the guilty findings. Nothing in the judgment separated those punishments from the Article 92 convictions. Castle said this could lead to a completely new trial, and he welcomes the fight, of which he stated he “will absolutely go with a jury this time and will 100% testify, exposing the entire chain of command from the top down.”

Though it’s been a costly fight, the battle to correct his record is far from over. It persists in the silence of unreturned emails, in the weight of a file that grows thicker with each passing day, in the stubborn refusal of a system to look its own failures in the eye.

Staff Sergeant Lance Castle’s fight is no longer just about a shot or a verdict—it’s about the integrity of his record, the truth of his evidence, and the refusal of an institution to correct itself even when its errors are laid bare even if it means it will destroy his and his growing young family’s life.

The news of a third child should be a time of celebration for Castle and his fiancé. Instead, it’s buried under the weight of a malicious trial, public backlash, halted military pay that was rightfully his, and the daily strain on his family as they fight their devastating uphill battle against generals and military judges.

His case demands an impartial investigation and the direct involvement of either SECWAR’s office, the SECAF himself, or President Donald Trump.

Lance Castle and his family’s ultimate goal is to retain an experienced and tenacious civilian appellate attorney for his ongoing fight with his entire case—for the sake of his family, accountability for all involved, and to prevent further harm by those in command.

AUTHOR’S NOTE: Should any portion of this three-part account be challenged as inaccurate by the Department of the Air Force or any named party or person, the author commits to publishing rebuttals and supplementary articles to ensure clarity, publicly.

 

 

The post The Air Force’s Vindictive War on Lance Castle: Ruthless Retaliation After a COVID Mandate Refusal and Full Acquittal at Court-Martial, Part Three appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.