Written Objection to Settlement (Christopher Lee Wickwire) — U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden (Dkt. 286)

Summary

A written objection to the settlement in U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden from Christopher Lee Wickwire, LCDR (USNR Retired), filed 07/09/24 as Document 286 in Case 4:21-cv-01236-O. The statement says the writer retired from the Navy Reserve as a Lieutenant Commander in January 2022 and that a religious exemption was denied. It objects to the proposed settlement, calling terms on the Navy website message, training requirements and the Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction change insulting. It also names as good points the review of personnel records, posting of religious accommodation approval numbers, contacting service members and payment of attorney fees and costs.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Full text

Text recognized from a scanned document; may contain errors. Page 3 of 3 is not shown because the text could not be recognized reliably.

Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 286 Filed 07/09/24 Page1of3 PagelD 8135
Written objection of settlement for U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, Case4:21-cv-01236-0 (N.D. Tex.)

Christopher Lee Wickwire

The facts contained in this statement are within my own knowledge and are true and correct.

1. My name is Christopher Lee Wickwire. | am 47 years old and currently employed as a
government contractor as a Strategic Planner at U.S. Strategic Command. | reside at 13907 S.
28" St. Bellevue, NE 68123. | retired from the Navy Reserve as a Lieutenant Commander (0-4) in
January 2022 after 20 years of faithful service.

2. My religious exemption was denied but on 15 December 2021, NAVADMIN 283/21 was issued
to expand vaccination dates for retiring personnel. Although | was ultimately exempted from
vaccination because | was retiring prior to June 2022, | did face several months of discrimination
and intimidation. .

Statement:

|, Christopher Lee Wickwire, object to the proposed settlement. The U.S. Navy clearly violated
the Constitutional rights and unfairly discriminated against service members by conducting blanket
denials of religious exemption waivers.

| count myself very lucky, | faced the threat of losing 20 years of progress towards earning my
retirement in order to stand up for my beliefs. The process of seeking exemption took several anxiety
filled months as | was threatened with a discharge just short of retirement as well as disciplinary actions.

Many others faced and continue to face continued discrimination for their religious beliefs in
regards to the Covid-19 shot. Many more are living with the guilt of compromising their beliefs in order
to continue to serve or face mental health problems from the ordeal. This settlement surrenders much
of the legal ground to complain against this discrimination while gaining affected service members very
little compensation in return. The terms of the settlement has a few minor good points but, many of the
terms are an insult and fail to meet the bare minimum of restitution.

o Reviewing the personnel records to remove adverse reports and allowing personnel to re-enlist
are good aspects. A small step in reparation, but any discharged service members should also
have their discharge status changed from “Other than Honorable” to “Honorable” status.

e tis good that adverse reports will not be considered during upcoming promotion boards, but
how would it address low scores from discriminating Commanding Officers during or after the
mandate? Service members were also removed from leadership positions and faced restrictions
on obtaining orders which in turn affects the quality of the support they could reflect on their
FITREP or EVAL and make them competitive for promotion. Furthermore, the settlement does
nothing to compensate members for lost wages from potential lost promotions.

e The change to Bureau of Navy Personnel Instruction on Religious Accommodation term is
insulting. The discrimination was due to Navy leadership’s purposely ignoring Navy policy and
not due to a faulty process or ignorance of the policy. —

STRICT COURT

JuL = g 2024 |

CLERK, U6. DISPRICT COURT
By Be ly ;
Case 4:21-cv-01236-O Document 286 Filed 07/09/24 Page 2of3 PagelD 8136
Written objection of settlement for U.S. Navy SEALs 1-26 v. Biden, Case4:21-cv-01236-0 (N.D. Tex.)

Christopher Lee Wickwire

© The message to be displayed on the Navy website for a year would need to address that during
the vaccine mandate, the Navy unfairly discriminated against servicemen who expressed the
need for a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate. As currently written, the message
does not express that the Navy is holding itself accountable for its religious discrimination.
Previous to the vaccine mandate one would occasionally see statements similar to that
statement in Navy literature and websites, yet the Navy still ignored the Constitutionally __
protected rights of its sailors, so why would issuing another such statement on the Navy website
have any meaning?

e The term in regards to (1) posting numbers on religious accommodation approvals and (2)
advising service members of their right to request a religious accommodation are good. At the
time of the mandate this information was not being posted in order to obscure the religious
discrimination, the discrimination became obvious with near 100% rejection of Religious
Discrimination requests.

e The training requirements for processing Religious discrimination term is insulting. The
discrimination did not occur from lack of training, but was dictated from the upper echelons of
command. By suggesting there needs to be more training, it diffuses their culpability and willful
discrimination. If there needs to be any training module designed in regards to this issue, it
needs to be on how leaders can protect the Constitutional rights of their subordinates from
unlawful orders. Many so called leaders put pleasing the Chain of Command to further their
career over protecting the Constitutional rights of their subordinates.

® The term about contacting service members is good. It the Navy’s fault, they should proactively
seek out service members rather than put the burden on them to seek out the information.

® tis good that the Navy is paying the attorney fees and costs. These service members had to pay
significant money, time, and effort to fight the government’s violation of the rights of service
members.

| would like thank the SEALs and others involved with this lawsuit. Many of us cheer you on and
wish we also had the resources to fight the Navy as long and as hard as you. | wish | could also
support you in this settlement, but these terms are an insult that does little to fix damages
caused and the Navy fails to take the bare minimal amount of accountability for their
discrimination. Acceptance of the settlement weakens legal arguments in future complaints.

Very Respectfully, 5s ,

LCDR Christopher Lee Wickwire, (USNR Retired)


File and source

File

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.286.0.pdf

Size

274,572 bytes

SHA-256

06241efba338e3cc8cc660a48d271fe7c42b4ebd1779cc3b7630348d6088a4e8

Our copy

gov.uscourts.txnd.355696.286.0.pdf

Original

No public link identified.