Former National Guard officer seeks reinstatement
By Tom Breen
Journal Inquirer
A former officer in the National Guard who was forced to resign in 1999 over his objections to a mandatory vaccination program is hoping to return to active duty now that a federal judge has bolstered his doubts about the program.
But state officials aren't certain whether they can do anything to help Maj. Thomas L. Rempfer of Suffield, saying the issue of his reinstatement might be a wholly federal decision.
According to federal court documents, Rempfer, along with Lt. Col. Russell E. Dingle of East Hartford, filed suit in March in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking reinstatement in the Guard, back pay, and a ruling on the legality of the mandatory anthrax vaccination program. Only Rempfer is seeking return to active duty, while Dingle is retired.
A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell cited the pending litigation as part of the reason the governor is waiting to make a decision about whether the state has a role to play in the reinstatement.
"The governor's office is reserving comment on this case until a resolution to the litigation that surrounds it is reached," Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot said today.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who unsuccessfully argued for the reinstatement of Rempfer and others in 2000, has pledged to investigate what options the state has in the matter.
"Both federal and state law address the appointment of officers to the Connecticut National Guard," Blumenthal said in a statement today. "Questions as to how state and federal authority affect and relate to each other in selecting Guard officers are difficult and complex. Appointment of certain Guard officers, for example, may require approval from both state and federal officials."
Rempfer and Dingle were members of a National Guard group called Tiger Team Alpha, which was tasked in 1998 with researching an anthrax vaccine made by the BioPort Corp. that soon was to become mandatory for military service personnel.
After their research turned up concerns about the vaccination, which had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at the time, the two men, along with other Guard members who refused to be vaccinated, were forced to resign.
Since then, Rempfer and Dingle have crusaded against the vaccination and their termination in lawsuits, opinion pieces for newspapers, and testimony before Congress.
Their case was bolstered in October 2004, when a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop requiring anthrax vaccinations for military personnel.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled the FDA violated its own procedures when it approved the vaccine in 2003, after an earlier court ruling, because it shut the public out of the hearing procedure.
"The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all -- public scrutiny," Sullivan wrote in his decision, according to court records.
In April, Sullivan modified his ruling slightly, allowing for the vaccine to be administered under certain emergency provisions, but stressing that vaccinations still had to be voluntary.
The judge's ruling essentially matched the research produced by Rempfer and Dingle's team in 1999, which recommended that "the prudent course of action may be to make the anthrax inoculation policy optional while a thorough review" by Congress, the Defense Department, and research organizations was conducted.
That finding, though, ultimately led to both men being forced out of the Guard, according to a 1999 ruling by the state Freedom of Information Commission, which also fined the Guard and some of its commanders for blocking Rempfer and Dingle's efforts to gain access to records about their case.
Both men later joined the Air Force Reserves.
Now, the question is whether Sullivan's rulings will change the situation of the two officers in relation to the Guard.
"The federal court ruling certainly strengthens the position that these officers have taken," Blumenthal said, but added that the question of their reinstatement will focus on what authority the governor's office has in the matter.
Journal Inquirer
A former officer in the National Guard who was forced to resign in 1999 over his objections to a mandatory vaccination program is hoping to return to active duty now that a federal judge has bolstered his doubts about the program.
But state officials aren't certain whether they can do anything to help Maj. Thomas L. Rempfer of Suffield, saying the issue of his reinstatement might be a wholly federal decision.
According to federal court documents, Rempfer, along with Lt. Col. Russell E. Dingle of East Hartford, filed suit in March in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, seeking reinstatement in the Guard, back pay, and a ruling on the legality of the mandatory anthrax vaccination program. Only Rempfer is seeking return to active duty, while Dingle is retired.
A spokesman for Gov. M. Jodi Rell cited the pending litigation as part of the reason the governor is waiting to make a decision about whether the state has a role to play in the reinstatement.
"The governor's office is reserving comment on this case until a resolution to the litigation that surrounds it is reached," Rell spokesman Adam Liegeot said today.
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal, who unsuccessfully argued for the reinstatement of Rempfer and others in 2000, has pledged to investigate what options the state has in the matter.
"Both federal and state law address the appointment of officers to the Connecticut National Guard," Blumenthal said in a statement today. "Questions as to how state and federal authority affect and relate to each other in selecting Guard officers are difficult and complex. Appointment of certain Guard officers, for example, may require approval from both state and federal officials."
Rempfer and Dingle were members of a National Guard group called Tiger Team Alpha, which was tasked in 1998 with researching an anthrax vaccine made by the BioPort Corp. that soon was to become mandatory for military service personnel.
After their research turned up concerns about the vaccination, which had not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration at the time, the two men, along with other Guard members who refused to be vaccinated, were forced to resign.
Since then, Rempfer and Dingle have crusaded against the vaccination and their termination in lawsuits, opinion pieces for newspapers, and testimony before Congress.
Their case was bolstered in October 2004, when a federal judge ordered the Pentagon to stop requiring anthrax vaccinations for military personnel.
U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan ruled the FDA violated its own procedures when it approved the vaccine in 2003, after an earlier court ruling, because it shut the public out of the hearing procedure.
"The men and women of our armed forces deserve the assurance that the vaccines our government compels them to take into their bodies have been tested by the greatest scrutiny of all -- public scrutiny," Sullivan wrote in his decision, according to court records.
In April, Sullivan modified his ruling slightly, allowing for the vaccine to be administered under certain emergency provisions, but stressing that vaccinations still had to be voluntary.
The judge's ruling essentially matched the research produced by Rempfer and Dingle's team in 1999, which recommended that "the prudent course of action may be to make the anthrax inoculation policy optional while a thorough review" by Congress, the Defense Department, and research organizations was conducted.
That finding, though, ultimately led to both men being forced out of the Guard, according to a 1999 ruling by the state Freedom of Information Commission, which also fined the Guard and some of its commanders for blocking Rempfer and Dingle's efforts to gain access to records about their case.
Both men later joined the Air Force Reserves.
Now, the question is whether Sullivan's rulings will change the situation of the two officers in relation to the Guard.
"The federal court ruling certainly strengthens the position that these officers have taken," Blumenthal said, but added that the question of their reinstatement will focus on what authority the governor's office has in the matter.
