Month: May 2025

Orders Under Fire: When Following Command Becomes a Legal Risk in Today’s Military

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Obedience Becomes a Crime: The Military Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Obedience in Uniform Has Limits

Military personnel are bound by duty, discipline, and the chain of command. But that duty does not extend to illegal actions. Under both U.S. military law and international standards, service members are legally required to refuse unlawful orders—a point often overlooked in public discourse and sometimes misunderstood within the ranks.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we’ve stood beside clients worldwide who’ve had the courage to disobey in defense of justice and the Constitution. This article explores the legal, ethical, and historical foundations of the duty to refuse unlawful orders—and what protections exist for those who do.

What Is an Unlawful Order?

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.

An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.

Examples of Unlawful Orders:

  • Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
  • Torturing or abusing detainees
  • Falsifying operational or legal records
  • Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions

Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.

Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).

According to Army Field Manual 27-10:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible.”

Historical and Legal Precedents

  1. Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

Established the global legal principle that “just following orders” is not a valid defense for war crimes.

  1. Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Held a commanding officer accountable for crimes committed by subordinates—introducing the doctrine of command responsibility. (Read the case)

  1. United States v. Calley (My Lai Massacre)

Calley’s conviction showed that carrying out manifestly illegal orders—even in combat—results in individual accountability. (U.S. Army analysis)

  1. Lt. Ehren Watada (2006)

Refused deployment to Iraq, arguing that the war was illegal. Although his case ended in a mistrial, it reignited public debate on conscience versus command.  Case overview

Ethics in Action: The Burden of Moral Courage

Military obedience does not require blind loyalty. Orders carry the presumption of legality, but that presumption is rebuttable—especially when the order is clearly illegal on its face. Recognizing an unlawful order is often difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations. Still, ethical training and operational awareness are designed to support service members in making these critical decisions.

Protections for Service Members Who Speak Up

Disobeying an unlawful order may save lives, protect the Constitution, and uphold international law—but it can also put a service member at risk of retaliation, adverse career action, or criminal charges.

Key Legal Protections:

  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act
    Protects service members who report violations of law or abuse of authority.
    10 U.S. Code § 1034
  • MEB/PEB Appeals and Administrative Relief
    If a service member is wrongfully discharged or medically separated in retaliation, legal remedies may be pursued through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Can Help

We represent service members in all branches of the armed forces—worldwide. From courts-martial and boards of inquiry to whistleblower defense and medical discharge litigation, we know how to challenge wrongful actions at every level of military command.

If you’ve been threatened, punished, or silenced for refusing an unlawful order—or for reporting one—you are not alone. And your rights deserve to be defended.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense firm representing active duty, reserve, and retired service members in courts-martial, MEB/PEB proceedings, security clearance matters, administrative separation, and federal court appeals. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to protecting those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com

Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

 

References & Citations

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is fact-specific. If you are facing a legal issue related to military justice or command authority, you should speak with a qualified and licensed military law attorney.

Memorial Day: A Legacy of Honor, A Nation’s Promise

Posted on by Becky Haugen

 

Flag with Soldiers boots
Image of Soldiers Boots in Memory of their Sacrifice.
Photo Taken by David at Schofield Barracks, 25th Infantry Division,”Tropical Lightening”, Memorial Day (2019)

Born from the ashes of the Civil War, Memorial Day began as a solemn tribute to the countless Union and Confederate soldiers who perished on American soil. First known as Decoration Day, families would gather to adorn the graves of the fallen with flowers, flags, and prayers, an act not of politics, but of remembrance. It was a sacred ritual of healing for a fractured nation.

Over a century later, the tradition endures. Memorial Day is no longer about North or South. It is about sacrifice, service, and the silent rows of headstones that stretch across Arlington, Normandy, and beyond. It is about every soldier who laid down their life in defense of a nation they believed in, even when that belief demanded the ultimate price.

As a law firm dedicated to defending the rights of those who wear the uniform, we know the fight does not end at the battlefield. We honor the fallen by standing with the living, ensuring service members, veterans, and their families receive the justice and dignity they have earned.

This weekend, may we all pause not only to remember, but to renew our collective promise: that these sacrifices will not be forgotten, and that our freedoms will never be taken for granted.

Let us honor their sacrifice by serving those who continue to wear the uniform.

Former Navy Member Appeals Federal Ruling in Disability Benefits Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Court Asked to Reconsider Standards Used to Deny Full Medical Retirement

A former Navy service member has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld the Department of the Navy’s disability benefits determination, arguing that the decision was contrary to statutory protections and unsupported by the administrative record. The appeal, filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the standards and methodology used by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) in assigning a 10% permanent disability rating—far below the threshold required for retirement benefits.

The appeal raises significant questions about how the military adjudicates disability claims involving mental health conditions, particularly Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) linked to combat-related service. The case centers on whether the PDBR misapplied regulatory guidance—specifically the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) § 4.129 and § 4.130—and whether it provided adequate justification for diverging from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ prior 30% disability rating.

According to court records, the appellant had served as a sensor operator involved in combat missions and was later diagnosed with PTSD. Despite this, the Navy separated the service member with a disability rating below the 30% threshold that would have guaranteed medical retirement and long-term benefits. A retroactive review by the PDBR provided temporary retirement benefits for a six-month window but ultimately affirmed the original 10% rating—an outcome the appellant contends is both legally flawed and medically unjust.

The appeal asserts that the PDBR failed to account for relevant medical evidence, improperly minimized symptoms of psychological trauma, and acted in conflict with governing Department of Defense policies that require minimum ratings for combat-related mental health conditions.

Attorneys from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represent the appellant, seek reversal of the lower court’s judgment and a remand for proper reconsideration under the Administrative Procedure Act.

ABOUT THE LAW FIRM

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for its expertise in military and federal litigation. The firm advocates for service members and federal employees in matters involving courts-martial, discharge upgrades, medical retirement, and administrative appeals.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the facts, law, and procedural posture of the case.

Medical Privacy Weaponized: The Pentagon Targets Transgender Troops

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In a move that has stunned civil rights advocates and service members alike, the Department of Defense has authorized the targeting of transgender troops using their own medical records. This isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a constitutional test. It marks a chilling moment where private health data is no longer a matter of care or protection, but a trigger for discharge, exclusion, and potential ruin.

The scope may appear narrow—focused only on service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria—but the implications are sweeping. If a subset of Americans in uniform can be expelled based on medical documentation tied to identity, what stops the next policy from targeting mental health diagnoses, reproductive history, or other protected medical categories?

This is more than a rollback of progress—it’s a blueprint for how bureaucracies can systemically isolate, stigmatize, and expel a population through paper trails. When records become tools of removal, no one is safe from being next.

At its core, this policy is a test:

  • A test of how far executive authority can go in overriding equality.
  • A test of whether health privacy exists at all in the armed forces.
  • A test of America’s promise to treat all who serve with dignity—regardless of gender, identity, or diagnosis.

The question is no longer “Who will be affected?”
It’s “Who’s watching—and who will be next?”

The Policy: Medical Records as a Tool of Separation

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in May 2025 that allowed the Trump administration’s transgender military ban to take effect pending litigation, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum through Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The memo directs the involuntary discharge of transgender service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria unless they voluntarily separate by June 6. Notably, the Pentagon is not relying on self-reporting—it is actively reviewing medical records to identify individuals, even if they have not publicly disclosed their identity.

This marks an unprecedented expansion of military surveillance into private health documentation as a means of enforcing exclusion.

Legal Violations: Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privacy

While military medical records operate under different rules than civilian care (HIPAA protections are limited in uniformed service), that does not mean there are no ethical or legal boundaries.

The new policy arguably violates:

  • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by targeting a protected class based solely on diagnosis tied to identity.
  • The Due Process Clause, by initiating discharge procedures without clear avenues for challenge or individualized assessment.
  • The principles of medical confidentiality, which are foundational even in the structured environment of military service.

Legal organizations including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU are mounting constitutional challenges, arguing that this discriminatory use of medical files weaponizes health data and violates civil liberties.

The Human Cost: Service, Sacrifice, and Systemic Exclusion

The real consequences extend far beyond legal theory.

For thousands of transgender troops—many of whom have served honorably through multiple administrations—this means career termination, loss of pensions and VA benefits, housing instability, and the erasure of hard-earned dignity.

This is not an issue of readiness, misconduct, or mission effectiveness. It is an issue of identity being treated as disqualifying.

What happens when medical diagnoses become the basis for separation, rather than support?

A Dangerous Precedent

If the government can discharge someone based on a medical file linked to gender identity today, it begs the question:
Could the same be done tomorrow based on mental health, reproductive history, PTSD, or other protected health conditions?

This policy opens the door to further abuse, creating a precedent where diagnosis equals discharge. That is incompatible with a professional military grounded in constitutional values and civil rights.

Sources and Further Reading:

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm representing military and federal employees across the country. We are committed to defending the constitutional rights of those who serve—regardless of identity, rank, or assignment. From wrongful discharge to discrimination and medical board challenges, we fight for justice on every front.

 Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a service member affected by this policy, contact a qualified attorney to discuss your rights and options.

When Safe Harbor Isn’t Safe—And the Cost Is More Than Just a Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Broken Ranks: How Premature Discharges Are Stripping Armed and Unarmed Service Members of Their Rightful Benefits

Promise Undone

For every military officer or enlisted member, there is a finish line, commonly known as “safe harbor,” that represents not just years of service, but stability, dignity, and the promise of earned retirement. In federal terms, this often means reaching 18 to 20 years of service, at which point a service member becomes eligible for retirement benefits.

But that finish line is increasingly being moved or removed entirely.

From uniformed members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard to their non-armed counterparts in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and NOAA Corps, stories are mounting: individuals relieved from duty without cause, stripped of retirement eligibility, and erased from service records before they can cross that critical threshold. The implications are not just administrative, they’re deeply human.

Who Is Protected—and Who’s Being Pushed Out?

Under the law, all uniformed service members fall under the same protective umbrella. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) codified at 50 U.S. Code § 3911 explicitly includes:

“Members of the uniformed services, including the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

That means USPHS officers, many of whom served at the frontlines of public health crises like COVID-19 and monkeypox, and NOAA Corps officers, who support national environmental and security missions, are legally entitled to protections traditionally associated with the military. These include:

  • Relief from civil actions during active duty
  • Cap on loan interest rates
  • Protection from eviction and foreclosure
  • Termination rights for leases and contracts

What’s missing, however, is enforcement when administrative leadership decides arbitrarily or strategically to relieve someone just before they reach safe harbor.

Systemic Failures, Human Loss

Consider the case of Major Coleman, a reservist who was administratively separated just shy of retirement eligibility. Despite a formal acknowledgment from the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records that an error occurred, Coleman has not been reinstated. The result? A lifetime of military service erased: no pension, no benefits, no honor.

Cases like Coleman’s are not isolated. Reports of officers and senior enlisted personnel being denied reenlistment or separated without clear cause are becoming more frequent across services.

In 2025, the Department of Defense came under scrutiny when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a major initiative to reduce senior officer positions under the banner “Less Generals, More GIs.” This reorganization aims to eliminate more than 120 general and flag officer positions, including active duty and National Guard billets, as part of a broader force restructuring (AP News, May 2025). Critics warn that such cuts could disproportionately impact those nearing retirement eligibility, particularly in the Army Reserve and National Guard, raising legal and ethical questions about whether such reductions are also being used to avoid future pension liabilities.

The Silent Impact on Unarmed Services

While headlines often focus on armed service members, unarmed uniformed personnel, like those in USPHS and NOAA Corps face similar risks with even less public scrutiny. These officers aren’t typically governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but are subject to involuntary separations for administrative reasons, including political shifts or agency restructurings.

Several Public Health Service officers who served during the pandemic have reported being placed on sudden administrative leave or being removed from leadership roles in the months leading up to eligibility for 20-year retirement, a devastating blow given the high-risk conditions under which many serve.

A Pattern Across Administrations

While these actions have become more visible under the current administration due to RIF orders and force realignment, they are not new. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used quiet reductions to shrink federal spending or shift agency priorities. What is new is the volume and the precision with which these discharges are timed, often to occur just before retirement eligibility.

These moves are not just about dollars; they represent a betrayal of trust.

A Legal Fight Worth Having

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, in Washington, DC specializing in military and federal employment law, represent numerous clients caught in this administrative crossfire. “We’re seeing a rise in unlawful terminations under the guise of restructuring,” Sheldon says. “It’s one thing to reform an agency or branch, it’s another to intentionally cut a service member short of the finish line.”

Sheldon emphasizes that these cases are winnable, but only if service members act quickly, document everything, and pursue appeals through Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records or via litigation in federal court.

What’s at Stake

  • Financial Security: Loss of retirement income and health care for life.
  • Reputation: Discharges close to retirement are often perceived as disciplinary—even when they are administrative.
  • Mental Health: Service members describe feeling “discarded,” “betrayed,” and “humiliated” after decades of service.

Holding the Line

Safe harbor isn’t a loophole. It’s a promise made to every uniformed service member, armed or unarmed, that their dedication will be honored with dignity, not dismissed with a discharge memo days before eligibility. As more stories come to light, it’s incumbent on Congress, the media, and the public to scrutinize why these discharges are happening and who benefits from denying long-serving members their due.

Because the integrity of our institutions depends not just on those who serve, but on how we treat them when they are no longer needed.

 References & Resources

Disclaimer
The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

Navy Officer’s Federal Appeal Challenges Arbitrary Promotion Denial and Career-Saving Records Dispute

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Plaintiff Seeks Judicial Review After Navy’s Unjust Delay and Career Impact

A significant appeal has been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the Navy’s prolonged delay and subsequent denial of a career-critical promotion, which the plaintiff argues occurred in direct violation of federal statute. Represented by Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the plaintiff, a decorated Navy Lieutenant, asserts that the Navy’s Board for Correction of Naval Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously by ignoring mandatory promotion timelines and mischaracterizing his service record.

At the heart of the case is the Navy’s failure to promote the plaintiff within the statutory deadline prescribed by 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5), which limits appointment delays to 18 months. The plaintiff’s promotion was delayed nearly 21 months, a violation the Navy itself acknowledged but refused to remedy. Despite exemplary service and a family legacy of military dedication, the plaintiff’s promotion was denied, and he was subjected to an adverse personnel action stemming from a minor 2019 incident aboard the USS Howard, an incident which his command later agreed did not warrant separation from service. The District Court acknowledged the Navy’s statutory breach but held that no enforceable duty existed to promote the plaintiff. The appeal argues this interpretation defies both congressional intent and longstanding precedent affirming the obligation of correction boards to rectify such injustices.

“The Navy delayed this officer’s rightful promotion well beyond what Congress allows,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “The law is clear: such delays may not exceed 18 months, and when they do, the promotion should occurs by operation of law. Our client’s rights, and his career, have been unjustly compromised.”

The lawsuit also challenges the Navy’s decision to uphold a detachment for cause action, which alleged “gross negligence” despite the plaintiff maintaining a record of exceeding performance standards for much of his career, including multiple commendations.

“This case is not just about one officer’s career,” Thayer added. “It’s about ensuring that service members can rely on the laws Congress enacts to protect them from arbitrary administrative overreach.”

The appeal seeks to overturn the District Court’s ruling and compel the Navy to correct the plaintiff’s record and recognize his promotion as having occurred by operation of law.

 ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a premier military and federal litigation firm representing service members and federal employees nationwide. The firm advocates in matters of military justice, administrative law, correction of records, security clearance defense, and federal employment disputes.

DISCLAIMER:

The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

When Justice Crosses Borders: Defending Veterans’ Rights Beyond the Battlefield

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Joe St. Clair once wore the uniform of the United States Air Force, standing watch in hostile territory during four combat tours in Afghanistan. He didn’t ask whether the nation would have his back if things went wrong — that trust was a given. But now, sitting in a prison cell in Caracas, Venezuela, that trust is being tested in ways no veteran should ever have to endure.

At 33 years old, St. Clair has gone from decorated combat veteran to an unwilling participant in what experts call “hostage diplomacy.” Venezuelan authorities detained him last October near the border with Colombia while he was traveling with a friend. No formal charges have been brought. His possessions were seized. He was transported across an international border without explanation. The U.S. State Department has since classified his detention as “wrongful,” yet St. Clair remains locked inside Rodeo One — a prison infamous for human rights abuses and masked guards who answer to names like “Hitler” and “Demon.”

This case is more than a diplomatic problem. It is a direct challenge to the core principles of military justice and veterans’ rights. Too often, once service members hang up the uniform, the legal protections and structured support that once safeguarded them can dissipate — especially when international borders complicate matters. But military justice isn’t merely a system of courts and codes. It is the embodiment of a promise: that those who step forward to defend the nation will, in turn, be defended by it, wherever they may be.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice may not extend into the hands of foreign governments, but the values it represents do. St. Clair’s wrongful detention violates not just international norms but also the expectations the military instills in every service member — that due process, human dignity, and the rule of law are non-negotiable. His case underscores how veterans remain vulnerable targets in geopolitical disputes. Without the full weight of their government behind them, they risk becoming bargaining chips in conflicts they neither started nor can control.

St. Clair’s imprisonment is a litmus test. Not only of how far the United States is willing to go to protect its citizens abroad but of how firmly military justice advocates and veterans’ rights defenders will stand when the law falls silent in foreign lands. His family’s calls for help should not echo into a void. They should galvanize the Department of Defense, the State Department, Congress, and the legal community to ensure that this veteran — and others like him — are not left to face injustice alone.

The battle for Joe St. Clair’s freedom is not just about securing his release. It is about reaffirming a national commitment to every veteran that their sacrifice does not expire with their service contract. Whether facing courts-martial here at home or unjust imprisonment abroad, they deserve unwavering defense. Our legal obligations may encounter borders. Our moral ones should not.

This nation cannot afford to let a decorated Air Force veteran — one of its own — become a silent casualty in the shadows of foreign prisons.

Stripes: Veteran Service Member Detained

Delay. Defer. Defend. Your Legal Rights Under IRR and National Guard Orders

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Are you in the IRR or National Guard and just received activation orders?

With the potential call up of tens of thousands of those of you who have been marking time in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), the National Guard or the Army Reserves for almost a decade now, one needs to act carefully to ensure that you consider your options. You may have established a career, a family, and the responsibilities that come with those things when suddenly you are faced with activation and deployment orders. Your world just blew up. Now what?

Recent events in the Middle East portend activation and deployment orders for thousands, if not a 100,000 service members by the end game. Individuals who have served in the National Guard or Reserves may do so believing their commitment will likely remain restricted to weekends or a few weeks a year. While activation and deployment orders are always possible, these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen may not be prepared, especially those who serve in the IRR, to activate and deploy.

Reservists and members of the National Guard should certainly take note and, of course, have a plan in place, especially if they are not in a position to deploy because of work and/or family obligations. But Congress has also allowed for service members to request delay and exemption from orders, through the delay and exemption board. But you must meet the statutory and regulatory bases. And, like everything, timing is critical.

It is important for Reserve and Guard members to understand the time frames in which they may request a delay or deferment in reporting, or an exemption from active duty, since untimely requests may not be processed, and even timely requests can be severely truncated by not understanding the rules and regulations that govern delay and exemption boards. It is also important to have an understanding of the differences between the types of requests and how they may affect a Reserve or Guard member.

The process varies depending on the military department involved, although if denied, generally appeals are available. Having an experienced attorney from the get-go can be critical since members may not be aware of exactly what information they need to provide before a request is considered. Although the process begins with a phone call or a form which may seem simple enough to complete, it is important to know what information a board is looking for in order to provide the strongest application possible. If past conflicts have taught us anything, it is that National Guard members and reservists need to be prepared. Timing is critical. The bottom line is that before you call the number on your orders to the delay and exemption board, let alone submit the form that governs, consult the rules and regulations that apply — or, better yet — call a qualified legal counsel that can assist you in making the very best case for a delay and exemption of your activation and deployment.

 

 

 

Complaint Highlights Navy’s Disparate Treatment and Violations of Federal Law

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Decorated Navy Officer Sues United States for Age Discrimination and Breach of Military Retirement Promises

Complaint Highlights Navy’s Disparate Treatment and Violations of Federal Law

Washington, D.C. — A decorated senior Navy officer has filed a lawsuit against the United States, alleging that the Navy unlawfully discharged him based solely on his age and denied him the prorated retirement benefits he was promised. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, contends that the Navy violated multiple federal laws and applied inconsistent retirement policies, resulting in the abrupt termination of the officer’s 13-year military career.

The officer, represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC asserts that he relied on direct assurances from Navy personnel that he would qualify for prorated retirement benefits if he served until age 62. However, when he reached the agreed-upon retirement age, the Navy discharged him without benefits, citing amended policies applied retroactively to his detriment.

“Military personnel rely on clear, consistent policies when making life-altering career decisions,” said attorney Dylan Thayer. “Our client chose to continue serving based on assurances from the Navy. The reversal of those commitments, through retroactive application of policy changes, is not only unjust but legally indefensible.”

Legal Violations Cited

The complaint alleges several federal legal violations, including:

  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 633a(a)), which requires that personnel actions affecting federal employees over age 40 be free from age bias. Read the statute
  • Military Pay Act (37 U.S.C. § 204(a)(1)), which mandates proper pay for military service members based on rank and years of service. Read the statute
  • Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), authorizing claims for monetary relief when federal agencies violate contractual or statutory obligations. Read the statute

The lawsuit also highlights the Navy’s retroactive application of changes to 10 U.S.C. § 1251, governing mandatory retirement. The officer was counseled under the original law, which guaranteed retirement at age 62 with prorated benefits. Amendments made in 2021, years after his service began, eliminated that protection. Read the statute

The lawsuit seeks:

  • Full back pay from the date of discharge
  • Reinstatement to active duty without age-based disqualification
  • Restoration of retirement benefits
  • Attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412). Read the statute

A Case with National Implications

This case raises broader questions about how the military updates policies affecting retirement and whether retroactive application can undermine service members’ legal and financial expectations.

“If the military can change the rules mid-career and apply them retroactively, no service member can be assured of receiving the benefits they were promised,” Thayer concluded.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm specializing in military and federal litigation. The firm represents service members and federal employees in retirement disputes, discharge cases, courts-martial, and age and disability discrimination claims. Its attorneys are committed to upholding the rights of those who serve the nation.

Contact:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street, S.E., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: 202.546.9575
www.militarydefense.com

 

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. Individuals seeking legal advice should consult qualified counsel.