Published by Pilots for HIMS Reform
Pilots for HIMS Reform (P4HR) has identified a deeply troubling case involving Commander Marty Barnard, an active-duty United States Air Force pilot and co-founder of P4HR, which raises serious concerns about retaliation, misrepresentation of medical evidence, and attempted interference with a military chain of command by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
Commander Barnard is currently engaged in an ongoing NTSB appeal related to his FAA First Class medical certificate after more than three and a half years of the FAA refusing to issue a First Class medical despite extensive documentation demonstrating qualification.
In January, Federal Air Surgeon Dr. Susan Northrup, through Congressman Jim Jordan’s office, stated that she “would be happy to review” Commander Barnard’s United States Air Force (USAF) medical waiver package and consider that data in evaluating his eligibility for a First Class medical certificate.
In response, Commander Barnard provided:
These materials were formally submitted directly to the FAA, including to Dr. Northrup. The FAA therefore had in its possession a legally valid, officially issued USAF medical waiver and flight certification confirming his fitness for duty.
What followed was two and a half months of silence.
After receiving no response, a follow-up inquiry was made again through Congressman Jordan’s office requesting a status update.
Within one week of that inquiry, the FAA contacted the United States Air Force.
According to verified information, the FAA’s outreach was perceived as an attempt to have Commander Barnard’s USAF flight status revoked.
The timing is critical.
An active-duty Air Force Commander—who had just sought assistance through proper congressional channels—was met not with a medical determination, but with an external communication directed to his military chain of command.
This sequence of events presents a clear and compelling appearance of retaliation for engaging the appeals process and congressional oversight, and an apparent attempt to sabotage both his FAA case and his military career.
At the time of this outreach, the FAA already possessed full documentation demonstrating that Commander Barnard had been medically cleared by the United States Air Force.
The United States Air Force conducted its own independent review of Commander Barnard’s medical history and testing data.
That review included:
The Air Force determined that:
The Air Force further cited applicable Department of Transportation standards and CFR requirements governing alcohol testing, explaining that:
Commander Barnard was returned to full flight status.
At the center of the FAA’s actions is a PEth (phosphatidylethanol) test that was not positive.
According to the record:
These classifications do not align with accepted medical standards. A result below threshold is not a positive result. Redefining such results introduces serious concerns regarding scientific integrity and regulatory fairness.
After more than two years of engagement, Dr. Northrup ultimately acknowledged that the FAA did not possess a confirmed positive PEth test on Commander Barnard.
Despite this, the FAA asserted that he had admitted to alcohol consumption.
Commander Barnard unequivocally denies ever making such an admission.
Despite possessing:
The FAA chose not to issue a medical determination, but instead contacted his military command.
Given the level at which this case has been handled, such an action would not originate from a routine administrative process. It would have had to originate from—or be directed under the authority of—the Federal Air Surgeon’s Office or the Deputy Federal Air Surgeon’s Office.
These are the same offices that had previously indicated they would work with Commander Barnard toward a resolution.
Viewed in full context, this outreach represents a clear act of reprisal—an attempt to undermine, discredit, or remove a pilot who has spent years challenging the FAA’s handling of his case.
The effort to reach into a military chain of command, despite possessing contrary medical evidence, raises serious concerns about both overreach and intent.
Commander Barnard is currently:
He maintains that he meets all requirements for an unrestricted First Class medical under:
His current United States Air Force medical certification further substantiates that position.
Why would a civilian regulatory agency, in the absence of a confirmed positive test and in contradiction to military medical findings, attempt to influence the flight status of an active-duty Air Force Commander—particularly following congressional inquiry?
In this case, the United States Air Force reviewed the evidence and made a determination grounded in medical data, regulatory standards, and documented performance.
The FAA, despite access to the same information, chose a different course of action—one that raises serious questions regarding consistency, process, and accountability.
Pilots for HIMS Reform will continue to document cases like this and advocate for evidence-based standards, transparency, and accountability in aviation medical certification.
The integrity of aviation medicine depends on adherence to science, law, and due process.
Those principles must be upheld.