Paper Trail: Pease Air National Guard
A Maine Mirror Accountability Series | Article 1 of the PEASE Air National Guard Base Series

By Ryan Michaels | The Maine Mirror

On October 26, 2023, I received a memorandum signed by Major Emily A. Hanson, then Commander of the 157th Maintenance Operations Flight (157 MOF) at Pease Air National Guard Base in New Hampshire, recommending that I be involuntarily removed from my full-time Active Guard Reserve (AGR) position.

The allegation wasn’t minor.

It wasn’t a counseling statement.

It wasn’t a disagreement over paperwork.

It wasn’t a poor performance review.

It was an accusation that struck at the very core of military service.

Major Hanson alleged that I had committed multiple violations of Article 86 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) by absenting myself from my assigned place of duty without authority. In military culture, that offense is commonly understood as being AWOL—Absent Without Leave.

For civilians, “AWOL” may sound like just another military acronym.

For those who have worn the uniform, it carries extraordinary weight.

Every service member understands the seriousness of failing to report for duty. An allegation that someone intentionally absented themselves without authorization calls into question their integrity, discipline, reliability, and willingness to obey lawful orders. It can become the basis for significant disciplinary action, permanently damage a military career, and forever alter a person’s professional reputation.

In my case, the memorandum specifically alleged that on October 17, 2023, I absented myself from my place of duty between 0900 and 1100, that my absence was “without authority,” and that my childcare issues had not been communicated beforehand. It further recommended that my AGR tour be involuntarily curtailed with an Under Honorable Conditions (General) characterization of service.

Those allegations became the foundation for an attempt to end my full-time military career, remove me from Active Guard Reserve status, and strip away the stability, income, retirement path, healthcare, and benefits that came with it.

As I revisited the contemporaneous text messages exchanged with Major Hanson in the days immediately preceding that memorandum, I found a chronology that appeared difficult to reconcile with the narrative presented in the official disciplinary paperwork.

This article simply places those records in chronological order.

---

(Mirror Record 001 — Screenshot showing Ryan notifying Major Hanson on October 16 that he must take his son to a counseling appointment before reporting to duty and requesting permission to report around 11:00 AM.)

October 16, 2023 — Asking for Guidance

At 3:07 PM, I proactively contacted my commander.

I explained that my son had a counseling appointment in Biddeford before school and asked whether I could report around 11:00 AM afterward.

Her response was immediate.

“Instead of 1100 could you please come in 1300–1500?“

There was no discipline.

There was no accusation.

There was simply a revised reporting time.

---

(Mirror Record 002 — Screenshot showing Ryan repeatedly stating he will comply with whatever instructions are given while explaining his children’s circumstances, followed by Major Hanson changing Tuesday’s schedule to 1230–1430 and establishing the remainder of the week’s reporting schedule.)

I responded:

“I will do whatever I’m asked…”

I explained why I had requested flexibility.

My children were experiencing one of the most difficult periods of their lives. Their mother was under active CPS investigation following multiple reports from professionals, and my goal was simply to minimize the amount of time they spent waiting after school during an already traumatic period.

Even after explaining all of that, I made my position unmistakably clear.

“Again, I’ll do whatever’s asked…”

Major Hanson then issued another revised schedule.

She instructed me to report:

• 1230–1430 on Tuesday.
• 0900–1100 for the remainder of the week.

She also asked whether Tuesdays would continue presenting scheduling conflicts.

I answered honestly.

At every step, I sought guidance.

At every step, I agreed to comply.

---

October 17, 2023 — Multiple Doctors Say Not to Return

The next morning, I sent another message.

---

(Mirror Record 003 — Screenshot showing Ryan forwarding his neurologist’s letter explaining that multiple treating providers recommended he not return to work while asking Major Hanson whether she still wanted him to report. Major Hanson replies: “Received, please still come in today.”)

I informed Major Hanson that my neurologist had issued a written letter concurring with the recommendations of my multidisciplinary treatment team.

This wasn’t a single doctor’s opinion.

By this point, multiple treating professionals—including neurology, psychiatry, occupational therapy, and other members of my care team—had concluded that I should not yet return to work following the traumatic brain injury I sustained earlier that year.

Yet I did not refuse to report.

I did not stay home.

I did not ignore my commander.

Instead, I asked a simple question.

“Should I still show up to work anyway?”

Then I immediately followed it with another statement that would become a recurring theme throughout these communications.

“I’ll do whatever is asked of me, to be clear.”

Her response left no ambiguity.

“Received, please still come in today.”

Despite the recommendations of the medical professionals treating me, I prepared to report exactly as instructed.

---

A New Order While I Was Already Reporting

Then, at 11:44 AM, everything changed.

---

(Mirror Record 004 — Screenshot showing Major Hanson directing Ryan not to report to Pease but instead to report to the Shipyard Clinic at 1230, followed by Ryan immediately requesting clarification and confirming his arrival.)

While I was already traveling in uniform to report for duty, Major Hanson issued a new order.

Instead of reporting to Pease Air National Guard Base, she instructed me:

“Please go to the Shipyard Clinic at 1230 instead of coming to Pease.”

The destination changed.

So I changed with it.

I immediately asked who I should see.

She instructed me to ask for Maj. Tidd.

I followed that instruction.

Upon arriving at the Shipyard Clinic, I immediately updated her.

“Here now…”

There was no refusal.

There was no disappearance.

There was no silence.

There was only ongoing communication and continued compliance with the instructions I was being given in real time.

---

Complying Again

At the Shipyard Clinic, I obtained additional medical documentation exactly as Major Hanson had instructed.

---

(Mirror Record 005 — Photograph of the handwritten Shipyard medical memorandum followed by Ryan asking Major Hanson for further direction and reaffirming that he will comply with whatever instructions she gives.)

After forwarding the physician’s memorandum, I once again asked for guidance.

“Please let me know how you wish for me to proceed, and I will comply in whatever way I need to.”

Looking back now, one phrase appears over and over throughout these communications.

“I will do whatever I’m asked.”

“I’ll do whatever is asked of me.”

“I will comply.”

“Please let me know how you wish for me to proceed.”

Those are not the words of someone attempting to avoid duty.

Those are the repeated words of someone asking his commander what she wanted him to do—and then doing exactly that.

---

My Next Report Date

Major Hanson then responded with another detailed message.

---

(Mirror Record 006 — Screenshot showing Major Hanson explaining why she believed additional medical documentation was necessary before concluding that Ryan would not report Wednesday due to medical appointments and that his next report time would be Thursday, October 19 at 0900.)

She explained why she believed more detailed medical documentation was necessary.

She requested additional information from my physicians.

Then she concluded with my next reporting instructions.

She wrote:

“We know tomorrow you will not be in due to multiple appts throughout the day…”

And then:

“Thursday at 0900 will be your next report time.”

That was the final reporting instruction I received in this exchange.

I followed the instructions that were given.

---

Nine Days Later

Nine days after these conversations, I received something entirely different.

---

(Mirror Record 007 — Page 1 of the October 26, 2023 memorandum recommending involuntary AGR curtailment and alleging unauthorized absences, including the allegation that Ryan absented himself from duty on October 17 between 0900 and 1100.)

On October 26, 2023, Major Hanson signed a memorandum recommending my involuntary curtailment from the Active Guard Reserve program.

The memorandum states that I absented myself from my place of duty between 0900 and 1100 on October 17, that my absence was “without authority,” and that I had failed to previously mention childcare issues.

Yet the contemporaneous communications reproduced above document a very different chronology.

They show that:

• I proactively notified my commander about my Tuesday scheduling conflict the day before.
• She revised my reporting time.
• I repeatedly stated that I would comply with whatever instructions I was given.
• Despite multiple treating professionals recommending that I not return to work, I asked whether she still wanted me to report.
• She instructed me to report anyway.
• While I was already reporting for duty, she redirected me to the Shipyard Clinic instead of Pease.
• I immediately complied with that new order.
• I checked in upon arrival.
• I obtained the additional medical documentation she requested.
• I again asked how she wanted me to proceed.
• She instructed me that, because of my Wednesday medical appointments, my next report time would be Thursday, October 19, at 0900.

Those events are not reconstructed from memory.

They are preserved in the contemporaneous text messages themselves.

---

(Mirror Record 008 — Page 2 of the October 26, 2023 involuntary AGR curtailment memorandum bearing Major Hanson’s signature and forwarding the recommendation through the chain of command.)

Why This Matters

This article is not asking readers to accept my opinion.

It is asking readers to examine the chronology.

The text messages were written before any disciplinary action existed.

The reporting instructions were issued in real time.

The medical documentation was exchanged in real time.

My responses were written in real time.

Again and again, the record shows me asking for guidance.

Again and again, it shows me saying I would comply.

Again and again, it shows me following the most recent instruction I had been given.

Nine days later, those same events became the basis for an official memorandum alleging that I had absented myself without authority and recommending the end of my full-time military career.

Whether those two records can be reconciled is a question every reader can answer for themselves.

For me, preserving the chronology matters because history should be measured against contemporaneous evidence—not hindsight.

The text messages cannot be rewritten.

The timestamps cannot be changed.

The written orders cannot be erased.

Sometimes, the clearest path to the truth is simply laying the record out, one message at a time, and allowing it to speak for itself.

Editor’s Note

This article focuses on a single sequence of events because it is important to examine one issue at a time and allow the contemporaneous record to speak for itself.

It should not be read as the entirety of my experience.

Rather, it represents what I allege is one of many significant retaliatory actions taken against me during the final chapter of my military career. I allege that my prolonged medical absence following a traumatic brain injury created staffing challenges and that, rather than being accommodated as an injured service member, efforts were made to push me out of the AGR program. That is my allegation, and I intend to continue examining and publishing the underlying records so readers can evaluate that claim for themselves.

The recommendation discussed in this article was only the beginning.

As this story continued, I allege that the effort to remove me escalated to an attempt to separate me from military service with an Other Than Honorable (OTH) discharge—the most severe administrative characterization of service available. To me, that represented far more than the loss of a job. It represented an attempt to redefine more than twelve years of faithful military service by the final chapter alone.

Because I was serving on Active Guard Reserve orders, I was assigned military defense counsel at no cost.

There was an irony I couldn’t ignore.

The attorney assigned to defend me worked for the very institution I believed was trying to remove me.

At first, I questioned how someone employed by the Air Force could truly advocate for me.

I couldn’t have been more wrong.

His name was Andrew.

Out of respect for his privacy, I won’t share his last name, but I will gladly share my gratitude.

Andrew is one of the finest people I have met throughout this entire journey.

He listened.

He cared.

He treated me like a human being when I desperately needed someone to do exactly that.

I will always be thankful for his counsel.

One conversation with Andrew has stayed with me ever since.

After reviewing what was happening, he told me that, in all of his decades practicing military law—including years handling cases throughout the Northeast and work connected to Washington, D.C.—he had never encountered anything quite like what he was seeing in my case.

That statement has remained with me ever since.

Not because it proves my allegations.

It doesn’t.

But because it came from someone whose career has been devoted to military justice and who had seen countless cases before mine.

Despite everything that followed, they did not succeed.

I stood up.

I spoke up.

I challenged what I believed to be false allegations.

And in the end, I was honorably discharged.

That distinction means everything to me.

Service was never simply employment.

It was part of my identity.

I entered the military intending to serve twenty years or more.

I loved wearing the uniform.

I loved serving something greater than myself.

Over twelve years, I graduated at the top of military courses, received numerous awards and recognitions, and was personally presented a coin by General Joseph Lengyel, then Chief of the National Guard Bureau, in recognition of actions that helped save the lives of more than nine people.

Those accomplishments do not make me more valuable than anyone else.

But they do tell part of the story of the service member I worked every day to become.

That is why these events hurt so deeply.

Not because I lost an AGR position.

Because I felt I was watching a lifetime of honorable service being reduced to allegations that I believed were false.

In many ways, what you have just read is not simply a military story.

It is the beginning of the story I am still living today.

When people ask why I continue speaking publicly about the Maine Department of Health and Human Services, the family courts, government transparency, and accountability, my answer is simple:

Because I have lived what I believe happens when narratives go unchallenged.

This military chapter did not exist in isolation.

Neither did what came afterward.

One domino became another.

The military.

My civilian employment.

Child protective investigations.

The family court system.

Financial collapse.

And ultimately, the loss of meaningful contact with my children.

Each chapter influenced the next.

Each narrative carried forward into the next institution.

Whether readers ultimately agree with that conclusion is entirely up to them.

That is precisely why The Maine Mirror exists.

Not to demand belief.

But to preserve chronology.

To preserve contemporaneous records.

To preserve evidence.

And to invite the public to examine it for themselves.

Because that is all I have ever truly asked for.

Truth.

Transparency.

Accountability.

If my allegations are wrong, then transparency should reveal that.

If they are right, transparency should reveal that too.

Either way, truth has nothing to fear from being examined.

I stood up against the military because I believed the truth mattered.

Today, I stand up against the State of Maine for exactly the same reason.

Not because the institutions are the same.

But because the principle is.

Truth should not depend on who is being questioned.

And accountability should never stop where authority begins.

Continue Following the Story

If you found value in this article, I invite you to follow this investigation as it unfolds.

This is only the beginning.

Over the coming weeks and months, I’ll continue publishing contemporaneous records, official documents, emails, text messages, FOAA responses, court filings, and other source material that allows you to examine the evidence for yourself.

The Maine Mirror isn’t built on asking you to take my word for anything.

It’s built on truth, transparency, and accountability—reflecting things as they are and trusting readers to draw their own conclusions.

Subscribe today—it’s completely free—and never miss an investigation.

👉 Subscribe at: www.themainemirror.com/subscribe

Because truth deserves to be seen. Transparency deserves to be expected. And accountability belongs to all of us.