Lt. Col. Natalie Rowell Says California Guard Retaliated After She Raised Concerns
Lt. Col. Natalie A. Rowell spent 33 years serving the country. Her latest assignment was as commander of the 195th Force Support Flight at Beale Air Force Base.
Now, she says that raising concerns about the California National Guard brought retaliation, the loss of her paycheck, and the loss of her TRICARE benefits.
Rowell told The Gateway Pundit that she had witnessed what she described as toxic leadership, favoritism, harassment, and a lack of accountability. Over time, she said, those problems pushed her to speak out on behalf of other service members.
“a whistleblower entrenched in California for quite some time.”
In September 2024, Rowell brought one of her concerns to Major General Matthew P. Beevers, the Adjutant General responsible for the California National Guard and the broader California Military Department.
Her complaint involved the Selective Retention Review Board, or SRRB. The board evaluates service members who could otherwise remain eligible to serve but may not be retained. The process can involve length of service, restructuring, or performance concerns. It is not supposed to be used as punishment.
Rowell said the process was hurting service members, including some who were struggling emotionally.
“It was affecting people, even to the point that some were suicidal,” she disclosed.
She also described service members learning about their discharge through text messages.
“People were being notified by text message that they were going to be discharged from the Air Force,” Rowell shared. “We’re talking about people’s careers, some with over 30 years of service, with nothing more than a text message notifying them of their discharge and a brief thank you for their service.”
Rowell had recently injured her ankle when she raised the issue. Although she had also been selectively non-retained, she said her visit to Beevers was not about her own case. She noted that her medical condition meant she could not simply be released from her Active Guard Reserve orders.
“I was there to point out that the California National Guard was inappropriately handling the Selective Retention Review Board (SRRB),” she explained. “Everything was then projected onto me as if I were the one complaining about my SRRB, but that wasn’t the case.”
According to Rowell’s account, the retaliation began after that meeting. In January 2025, while receiving military-directed treatment for a service-connected ankle condition and waiting for a required disability evaluation, her AGR orders were curtailed without her knowledge. She was then discharged.
The report says the decision disregarded her ongoing medical treatment and violated ANGI 36-101, paragraph 12.4.2, along with medical-hold guidance from the Air National Guard Readiness Center.
The AGR Air Manager originally assigned to carry out the curtailment reportedly refused and documented that the action was inappropriate. Two days after the California Military Department acknowledged a congressional inquiry into Rowell’s case, the discharge action was sent to the Air Reserve Personnel Center. It was then entered retroactively three months later, on the same date a Command-Directed Investigation began into her allegations.
Rowell said she was placed in a unique PASCode, an eight-character code used by the Air Force to identify a unit and a service member’s assignment for administrative purposes.
“I was involuntarily separated, put in a unique PASCode,” Rowell shared. “I belong to Headquarters Air Force.”
She said she has remained in that status since early 2025 and has not been allowed to retire through the code. When she contacted the Air Reserve Personnel Center, she was told that only the Adjutant General could remove her, and that a memo would be enough.
“I never retired. I’ve received no paycheck. I have no TRICARE benefits. They have completely cut me off,” she lamented.
Rowell’s account describes a service member who says she raised concerns about how other troops were treated, only to face serious consequences in her own career. The case centers on whether California Guard officials followed the required procedures while she was injured and awaiting a mandatory medical evaluation.