Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (R-FL) and her husband are suing the Department of Defense over conditions surrounding her husband’s departure from the National Guard over a refusal to receive the COVID-19 vaccine.
In a court filing, Luna and Andrew Gamberzky’s attorney said Gamberzky was “fired” over his rejection despite applying for an exemption based on his “sincerely held religious beliefs.” As a result, the two incurred “significant financial injury,” including the “loss of healthcare, spousal benefits, and survivor benefits as provided for by the military.” Luna, Gamberzky, and their attorney, Natalie Khawam, spoke with the Washington Examiner about the lawsuit.
FOUR TIMES DEMOCRATS HAVE BACKED SOMETHING THAT MAY COME BACK TO BITE THEM
The complaint holds that the DOD violated Gamberzky’s First Amendment rights, saying “discrimination on the basis of Plaintiffs sincerely held religious beliefs caused Plaintiffs wrongful separation from the National Guard.”
Prior to Gamberzky’s separation from the military, Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin issued the memo “Mandatory Coronavirus Disease 2019 Vaccination of Department of Defense Service Members” on Aug 21, 2021. It required all service members to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
Gamberzky boasted a long military career.
“I’ve never had any disciplinary issues. My whole career has been spotless, and so for me … this is extremely heartbreaking,” he said. “Like how this all happened and went down. And I just pray that things like this just won’t happen in the future.”
Gamberzky had been a member of the U.S. Air Force since 2009, working with special operations teams and being awarded a Purple Heart in Afghanistan in 2014 after being shot and sustaining life-threatening injuries. He was separately awarded the Combat Action Ribbon and a Bronze Star for “meritorious service during combat” that “contributed to the overwhelming success of the command’s mission.”
Gamberzky objected to the COVID-19 vaccine, citing his religious beliefs and opposition to abortion, as aborted fetal cell tissue was used in the development of some vaccines. He said he filed a religious exemption request but quickly learned that almost all were rejected. He then feared punishment that would tarnish his military record, including Article 15 and a court martial.
As he explained, Article 15 is “extremely career-ending. … The best analogy is like having a felony. … It sincerely limits things you can do — it limits reenlistments. And then the following phase after Article 15, that is court martial. And a court martial … can lead to many days in prison.”
Though Gamberzky left the military without being removed by higher-ups, Khawam argued that he experienced the military equivalent of constructive termination, when an employer makes conditions purposefully intolerable to the extent that an employee is moved to quit.
Luna, who also served in the military previously, said the DOD’s behavior has hurt her perception of it.
“It is heartbreaking as a spouse to see, you know, Andy [Gamberzky] just basically thrown to the wayside like that,” she told the Washington Examiner. “I think that it was just incredibly hard to see. … We literally had a very short period of time to make a massively huge, life-changing decision. And so to have someone that was anticipating on … X amount of time in the military and then just to be basically told, ‘Hey, you either need to take this or you are you’re gonna be … punished’ is pretty crazy to see. And I say that as someone who’s enlisted, served in the military, and then also as a spouse.”
Luna said she hopes that aside from restoring Gamberzky’s benefits, the lawsuit will also make the DOD “think twice about ever doing [this] to any service member.”
“It seems like they were trying to essentially basically destroy Andy’s career,” she said. “It definitely makes me think twice about, especially some of the things that we have coming down the pipe via legislation. And, frankly, you know, as someone who has been personally impacted by the administration’s … way in how they treated service members and just their blatant disrespect for … someone’s religious beliefs … it’s pretty wild to see. I never thought that I’d see that in the military.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
In leaving the military, Gamberzky was “sacrificing his military career, hard-won CCT beret, participation in the medical board evaluation, and potential medical and military retirement,” the complaint read.
Gamberzky told the Washington Examiner that he has no plans on rejoining the military.
