The Arizona National Guard is trying to boot out one of its top officers, Col. Christopher Lambesis, based on charges that he is a toxic leader who committed insubordination and communicated threats to the state's military commander, Maj. Gen. Michael McGuire.

But the colonel, a combat veteran with two Bronze Stars, contends the case against him is a sham trumped up because he complained about improper promotions, unethical leadership and inaccurate data that could endanger troops scheduled for deployment.

'I'm being railroaded'

"Citizen soldiers of this great state are at risk of being unnecessarily hurt," Lambesis said. "I have uncovered falsified training reports. … What's happening is I'm being railroaded through a process because I'm a thorn in leadership's side."

McGuire disputed Lambesis' assertions and said Guard members are properly prepared for deployments.

Capt. Aaron Thacker, a Guard spokesman, added that 7,136 Arizona soldiers have been mobilized since 9/11, with just seven deaths.

Lambesis, nicknamed "the Big Nasty," spent most of his 24-year career as an infantry specialist in the active Army, completing four deployments. At age 49, he is an imposing figure with a shaved head and starched uniform — an officer who greets people with direct eye contact and a firm grip.

One master sergeant offered this description to a military investigator: "Colonel Lambesis is a 6-foot, 4-inch Airborne Ranger infantry colonel with meat hooks for hands, gravel in his throat and a presence of experience. Yes, he is intimidating. I imagine he would still look intimidating sitting in a Port-a-John."

From promotions to court dates

Until late last year, according to investigative records, Lambesis had received top performance ratings. He was promoted to colonel in early 2016 after being placed in charge of "G3," the Arizona Guard's operation headquarters at Papago Park Military Reservation in Phoenix. In that capacity, he oversaw preparation and training for thousands of personnel.

Yet, today, his career is in shambles, possibly over. First he was relieved of duty as deputy chief of staff and banned from National Guard installations. Recently, he was told he will be forcibly, albeit honorably, discharged from full-time National Guard duty, making him a traditional part-time Guardsman. And he still faces an administrative trial that could remove him from Arizona's military altogether.

Charges against Lambesis were brought by McGuire, who took command of the National Guard in 2013 after an Arizona Republic investigation exposed a cultural breakdown that included cronyism, fraternization, fraud, recruitment abuses, drug dealing, sexual harassment and retaliation.

In a written statement, the National Guard said Lambesis came under investigation last year when several subordinates lodged complaints alleging the colonel "was a toxic leader and a bully who created a hostile work environment."

Lambesis contends he's being drummed out for trying to uphold Army values, not sabotage them. “I’m not a toxic leader," he said. "I’m an ass who expects you to do your job, and I fully admit to that because I want people to be combat ready.”

Controversy raises questions

The National Guard is a state militia comprising 8,300 soldiers and airmen. About 2,300 are full-time employees; the rest drill one weekend per month.

The Guard is part of Arizona's Department of Emergency and Military Affairs, with a budget of nearly $500 million. Units occasionally deploy to Iraq and Afghanistan alongside federal military personnel. They fly attack helicopters, carry out security missions, serve as military police and refuel fighter jets in mid-air.

The Lambesis controversy hinges mostly on one issue: When does an officer's conduct become so hard-nosed that it violates standards for ethics and professionalism?

But it also raises questions about Arizona's military administration. If Lambesis is a horrid leader, how did he suddenly get that way after 24 years in uniform? And why was he promoted — placed in charge of Army operations and training — less than two years ago?

Conversely, if Lambesis' claims are true, has the Arizona National Guard endangered troops and convened a kangaroo court to get rid of an officer who stood up and said no?

Email escalates situation to 'thermal nuclear'

Either way, the dispute turned personal.

First, National Guard leaders had Lambesis escorted at headquarters by armed security guards after he was labeled "toxic." Then Lambesis sent an email to McGuire that was treated as "a threat to the adjutant general."

In the Oct. 26, 2016, message, Lambesis noted that his daughter attends Xavier College Preparatory, a high school in central Phoenix where McGuire's daughter also is a student. Lambesis pointed out that he regularly attends campus events and is friends with the security officer, who was his high school baseball coach years ago at the adjacent Brophy Prep.

"I believe you would be negligent in your duties to not require someone to inform Xavier College Preparatory about the threat I pose to soldiers in the AZ ARNG," the message continued. "Over the past five months I have required armed escort, isolation, restriction and suspension so (as) to protect the soldiers …"

Though Lambesis would later say the email was intended as sarcasm, McGuire contacted Phoenix police. When interviewed by a detective, McGuire portrayed Lambesis as a disgruntled combat soldier with tactical weapon skills who had been ordered to undergo mental-health evaluation. Though he acknowledged Lambesis was not diagnosed with any psychiatric disorder, McGuire said the colonel exhibits "one of the highest levels of narcissism I've ever seen in my 30-plus years in the military."

McGuire told police the message about Xavier Prep was particularly alarming because Gov. Doug Ducey's son attends Brophy, and the message was copied to Ducey. He said the missive about Xavier made things "thermal nuclear" because it constituted "separate and distinct misconduct from any of that other crap we were investigating before."

McGuire told police he had increased security for himself and National Guard headquarters. He described Lambesis as "a mountain of human muscle … 6 foot 8 and that's not an exaggeration, 275 pounds and probably 6 percent body fat." (Lambesis said he is 6-5, 230 pounds and 16 percent body fat.)

Police then interviewed the Xavier High security guard, who described Lambesis as a "very nice man" and not a threat at all.

They contacted Lambesis, who has no criminal record. The colonel scoffed at McGuire's report, describing it as "a joke and a form of harassment." He said the email was an exaggeration to make a point. He advised that he was a whistleblower, and that McGuire's police report was punitive.

In interviews with The Republic, Lambesis said his message was meant to show the absurdity of retaliatory acts against him — particularly security precautions.

Phoenix police concluded there was "no evidence supporting a crime." The case was closed.

But, in McGuire's eyes, Lambesis had crossed a line.

Claims of systemic favoritism

Lambesis came to the Arizona Guard in 2007 from the U.S. Army. He served as a so-called "weekend warrior" until 2012, when he became a full-time soldier again — lieutenant colonel with an infantry unit.

Friction began as early as 2014. According to records obtained by The Republic, Lambesis complained that a fellow officer had failed a physical conditioning exam and attempted to get the results altered through "undue influence." Yet, instead of getting disciplined, Lambesis said, the officer was promoted to colonel.

Shortly thereafter, Lambesis said, an anonymous informer accused him of fraternization or sexual harassment. An investigation was launched. No misconduct was substantiated, but Lambesis said his bid for a promotion was temporarily sabotaged.

Over time, Lambesis said, he perceived systemic favoritism, with longtime Arizona Guard members getting elevated over more qualified officers who previously served in the regular Army. In July 2015, Lambesis wrote a letter to the Department of the Army Inspector General alleging discrimination as well as "incompetent and unethical leadership," according to a copy obtained by The Republic.

"First and foremost, the actions of the senior leaders of the Arizona National Guard appear to be putting soldiers at great risk if they were ever to have to deploy and fight on the battlefield," Lambesis wrote. "They are subjected to a leader selection process which will more than likely result in needless deaths. … There has been a systemic pattern of gross misconduct, threats to my career and outright reprisal for bringing to the attention of leadership the injustices I have had to endure."

The inspector general, noting that personnel decisions are up to the adjutant general, declined to investigate.

Soldier readiness questioned

Three months later, Lambesis was appointed to a post known as G3, or deputy chief of staff responsible for operations and training. He contends McGuire was forced to approve the promotion because fairness issues had become untenable. Yet his elevation to full colonel was delayed for months, until February 2016.

McGuire declined to address those statements.

Lambesis started his new job with an iron fist. By all accounts, some soldiers in his unit turned hostile and recalcitrant.

At the same time, Lambesis developed new conflicts with his bosses. As G3, Lambesis said, he discovered integrity problems with National Guard data reflecting the readiness of personnel and units. Soldier records contained false skill certifications in some cases, he alleged, and roughly 1,500 soldiers either had failed fitness/weight exams or were untested.

The National Guard, in a written statement, said Lambesis is simply wrong in those claims. It said soldiers may appear to be out of fitness compliance in the data system if they are new to the organization, recently transferred or were excused from testing for legitimate medical reasons.

Lambesis said financial accountability was also problematic. For example, an audit verified that soldiers in one unit had failed to turn in up to $1 million worth of combat gear as required, yet the negligence or theft was swept under the rug.

Lambesis alleged that the 1/158th Infantry Battalion, which is awaiting deployment to Afghanistan, had flawed data and was unprepared. In May 2016, records show, he told Brig. General John Hoefert, the Army Guard's land component commander, that records for the outfit were "grossly inaccurate" and had been "fraudulently misrepresented" in a Unit Status Report to the Army.

Lambesis told The Republic more than 135 of the battalion's 630 soldiers were given credit for qualifying with assigned weapons even though records indicated they did not attend the training. He expressed concern to Hoefert that unprepared soldiers were being sent to live-fire exercises.

Lambesis began raising issues directly with McGuire in a series of meetings and emails.

Guard disputes allegations

In written comments to the newspaper, McGuire said allegations about inaccurate training data are "not true, as verified by other officers."

A separate Guard statement said some databases have bugs that need to be worked out, but it is "highly unlikely that training records are fraudulent or false" because they are processed by multiple personnel in more than one system.

The Guard said there are few minimum standards for deployment: A soldier must have a current health assessment and hold an Army occupational specialty. A unit must provide its full complement of soldiers and get mission-specific training.

In the case of the 158th Infantry Battalion, the Guard said a live-fire exercise was conducted in June at Camp Roberts, Calif. Soldiers lacking weapons certifications were trained during the first five days or did not participate. No injuries were reported during the exercise.

Report cites toxic leadership tactics

In May 2016, as Lambesis was sounding alarms, three subordinates formally accused him of creating a hostile work environment. A captain alleged that Lambesis called him a "coward and a drama queen." (Lambesis contends he described the officer's conduct as cowardly.)

A California National Guard officer, Col. Mark Van Dyke, investigated. The Arizona Guard declined to release findings, but The Republic independently obtained a copy. In it, Van Dyke concluded that Lambesis employed "toxic and/or negative leadership tactics."

Among the findings:

Lambesis expressed distrust for soldiers unless they demonstrated competence and integrity, and he did not show sufficient appreciation for their work.

He "failed to communicate empathy as a leader toward his staff as they tried to make the transition to his leadership style." He loudly rebuked subordinates and sometimes groaned or used dismissive body language when frustrated.

He was guilty of "micromanagement" because he questioned data while pressing for accountability.

Accusations of bullying were not substantiated.

Demanding boss or iron-fisted leader?

During the inquiry, Van Dyke told another officer that Lambesis' severe manner stemmed from an awareness that, on the battlefield, details can be critical: "It seemed like the basis of everything was, 'This will get you killed in combat.' "

Witnesses spoke of a "General Patton personality." One officer said Lambesis "wears people out. … He has a very rigid picture of what an effective leader looks like, and that picture is Chris Lambesis."

Several complained that the colonel demanded they justify their jobs. "I dread going into any meeting with Colonel Lambesis," said a major. "He has a tendency to hijack the meeting from whomever is speaking and tries to take control by berating the briefer."

Yet others defended Lambesis as a rigorous boss motivated by diligence rather than self-interest.

Master Sgt. Rich Bojorquez-Davila said Lambesis inherited a G3 office that lacked integrity, and some staffers collaborated to bring him down: "In the truth of the matter, the toxicity was not in his hand; toxicity was behind his back."

Bojorquez-Davila said subordinates created "a climate that I call the coup d'etat," adding, "I don't think Colonel Lambesis got a fair shake, but he didn't do himself any favors, either. … Colonel Lambesis is not going to play the same games others would play."

"The simple fact is that Colonel Lambesis led by example," agreed Darcy Jones, a former operations officer. "He set the standard for others to follow, and encouraged others to give their best effort. …It is my experience that some G3 personnel are not accustomed to being held to the standards of a military operation."

Van Dyke noted that Lambesis' style was typical for combat officers and had succeeded through more than two decades of military service. He wrote that the colonel "genuinely cares for soldiers and the improvement of the organization, and he believes the soldiers deserve the best leadership they can get… I did not — nor did anyone I interviewed — characterize him as deceptive or wanting to get something for himself."

Nevertheless, Van Dyke wrote, Lambesis failed to modify his approach for office workers, and thereby violated ethical and professional standards. Promoting Lambesis to oversee operations and training was a "risky placement," the report concluded, and senior National Guard leaders "shoulder some responsibility for his failure."

Lambesis said he was astounded to be labeled "toxic" for demanding accountability. He readily acknowledged being tough with superiors, subordinates and himself: "Absolutely," he said. "You lead from the front."

Tenacity draws rebuke

Based on the investigative report, Brig. Gen. Hoefert issued a reprimand and ordered a mental-health examination. Records show Lambesis was posted in a tiny, windowless room, given virtually no job assignments and instructed to refrain from contact with fellow soldiers.

He began papering McGuire with appeals and rebuttals. He obtained supportive statements from about 70 soldiers. He questioned the fairness of Van Dyke's investigation.

As those efforts failed, Lambesis grew more tenacious. He wrote to Ducey about "serious misconduct" and followed that with the purportedly threatening email to McGuire. (The Governor's Office declined comment except to say Ducey is aware of the controversy and an ongoing investigation by the Army Office of Inspector General.)

Lambesis was promptly dismissed as G3. A military protection order banned him from National Guard facilities and directed him not to come within 500 feet of top commanders.

On Jan. 30, McGuire urged the Army to involuntarily release Lambesis from the Guard. His letter said the colonel "engaged in misconduct that is grossly prejudicial to good order and discipline, and he is a foreseeable threat to the safety of his fellow soldiers."

After being notified of the proposed action, Lambesis requested a hearing before fellow officers.

And that ignited another controversy.

Separation process

McGuire two years ago created the state procedure to separate an officer from the Arizona Guard.

Under those rules, the adjutant general decides whether to convene a hearing. He nominates the administrative board, or jury. And he appoints a subordinate as the legal decision-maker.

If the board upholds charges and recommends separation, McGuire may accept or reject that decision. If he accepts it, the governor has final say.

If the board finds Lambesis not guilty, McGuire must accept that ruling and the case is closed.

The quasi-trial of Lambesis began April Fools' Day in a conference room at the National Guard armory on McDowell Road.

The colonel, wearing camouflage fatigues, sat quietly with hands folded, fingers locked.

Defense attorney Will Helixon opened with a fusillade of objections, arguing that McGuire is an accuser, alleged victim, potential witness — and boss of everyone involved. He said Arizona statutes prohibit a commander from initiating proceedings if he or she also is an accuser, adding, "It is inappropriate for the witness and alleged victim to be able to appoint the board members who will judge his credibility and determine the facts."

Helixon also argued there is a "perception of bias and unfairness" because the officer assigned to make legal rulings, such as whether McGuire must testify, reports to the adjutant general.

All objections were thrown out.

Early in proceedings, Col. James Caruso, designated by McGuire as president of the tribunal, stressed the importance of fairness for a fellow officer. "This is serious business, and we need to do this right," he said. "In our business, sometimes you have to be firm and direct. I think sometimes people view that as being an a--hole, and sometimes people view that as being a leader."

The upshot: On June 19, McGuire signed a memo saying Lambesis would be "involuntarily released from full-time National Guard duty, and his service will be characterized as honorable." A Guard spokeswoman said his full-time status will end Aug. 17. Helixon was told Lambesis now has two choices: Remain a weekend warrior or retire.

But Lambesis still wants an independent investigation. He compared himself to a combatant on a hill, making a stand after most of his unit has been wiped out.

"We're taught to hunker down and take on the charge," he said. "I've been under fire in the fox hole, basically shooting at anything that jingles my wire for the past year. … I believe the institution of the Army is at risk."