Month: June 2025

U.S. Air Force Member Granted Honorable Discharge, Opens Path to Medical Evaluation Board Review

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A service member represented by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has been granted an Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force, following the approval of a conditional waiver by Major General Daniel A. DeVoe, Commander of the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW). This decision closes an administrative separation proceeding and allows the member to move forward with a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process to address service-related health concerns.

Originally initiated due to allegations of misconduct, the administrative discharge proceedings temporarily halted the member’s medical review process. However, with the recent decision to issue an Honorable Discharge, the member is now eligible to pursue further review before the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) in an effort to reinstate the MEB.

“This is a significant and affirming step,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “It not only honors our client’s service but also acknowledges the importance of ensuring access to the medical systems designed to support service members affected by trauma. We are now in a position to re-engage with the MEB process so that our client can receive a full and fair evaluation of their health conditions.”

The member’s appeal to preserve the MEB was initially denied after a military separation board determined that the member’s conduct was not linked to any underlying service-connected disability. That decision is now subject to further review. The legal team argues that the misconduct was closely tied to undiagnosed or untreated PTSD and related behaviors stemming from operational stress.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is now preparing the client’s petition to the AFBCMR, advocating for the reinstatement of MEB proceedings and any related benefits the member may be entitled to under military disability retirement rules.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provides aggressive and compassionate legal representation to service members across all branches of the military. The firm is nationally recognized for its expertise in military justice, medical retirements, security clearance defense, and discharge upgrades.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Individuals seeking legal representation should consult with a qualified attorney.

Missouri Jury Sides with Veteran in PTSD Workplace Discrimination Case: A Turning Point for Mental Health Rights?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Missouri jury recently awarded a veteran $700,000.00 in damages after finding his PTSD, a service-related, disabling mental health condition was not reasonably accommodated at work. The decision is significant as it treats PTSD with the same gravity as physical disabilities, sending a clear message to employers across the U.S.

This ruling may be early evidence of a legal shift that mental health is stepping into the same protective space as physical health under disability law. Employers should take note training, workplace flexibility, and early accommodation could soon go from optional best-practices to legal necessities.

Moreover, as veterans face stricter evidentiary standards in VA proceedings, workplace rulings like this may offer an alternate path to recognition and relief. Importantly, insurers and employers may now have a business imperative to revisit their PTSD and mental health policies.

This isn’t just one Veteran’s legal win as it could mark a turning point for mental-health accommodations in the workplace.

The Missouri verdict, while not binding nationwide, is a high-profile affirmation that PTSD can be a workplace disability requiring legal protection. It aligns with evolving expectations—legal, corporate, and cultural—that mental health deserves serious, structured support in employment. Employers, insurers, and advocates should treat this case as a catalyst: it’s time to fully integrate mental health into workplace rights and practices.

Resources

Commissioning Restored: Legal Advocacy Secures Future for Disenrolled ROTC Cadet

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a promising ROTC cadet faced sudden disenrollment just days before his scheduled commissioning and college graduation, it nearly derailed years of dedication, training, and commitment to military service. But with the support of his family and the swift intervention of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC, justice prevailed.

This case, led by Attorney David P. Sheldon, is a reminder of the stakes involved when ROTC disenrollment actions occur without a full and fair understanding of the facts. And more importantly, it demonstrates how legal support can make the difference between a lost opportunity and a restored future.

“The Law Office of David Sheldon is nothing short of responsive, professional, and deeply committed when it comes to representing their clients,” shared the cadet’s mother. “Thanks to Mr. Sheldon and his team, our son was given back his chance to serve.”

A Misjudged Moment with Major Consequences

The cadet had a long-standing record of strong academic performance, demonstrated leadership, and unwavering commitment to his service branch. However, in the final week before commissioning, a procedural misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of events led his detachment to pursue disenrollment based on concerns that did not reflect his true conduct or character.

Without legal intervention, these types of allegations, especially when raised so close to graduation can lead to devastating outcomes. In this case, the cadet’s future service, graduation standing, and career trajectory were all placed at risk.

“They listened to us, answered every question, and most importantly, they believed in our son when others didn’t,” said the cadet’s mother.

Standing Up for Integrity, Due Process, and Leadership Potential

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon worked quickly to ensure the cadet’s record and intentions were accurately represented. Through a combination of legal advocacy, supporting testimony, and thorough documentation, the firm ensured that his conduct was reviewed in full context.

Multiple community members and mentors provided strong character references, attesting to the cadet’s fitness for service and his long-standing desire to serve his country. These efforts helped create a balanced view that ultimately enabled ROTC leadership to revisit their decision.

“This was never about just fixing a mistake,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon. “It was about ensuring that a capable and committed future officer was not denied his rightful opportunity to serve based on an incomplete or unfair process.”

The Outcome: Commissioning Achieved, Future Secured

Although the cadet was unable to commission on his originally scheduled date, the firm’s legal efforts led to a reversal within 48 hours. He officially entered active duty just days later and now serves proudly in the U.S. Air Force.

This case stands as a powerful reminder: disenrollment decisions—especially those made under pressure or without full context—must be carefully examined. Cadets and their families should know that they have the right to contest those decisions, and that competent legal counsel can make all the difference.

“Justice was served,” the family shared. “Thanks to this team, our son is fulfilling his dream and wearing the uniform with pride.”

Supreme Court Ruling in Soto v. United States Expands Retroactive CRSC Benefits for Veterans

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Supreme Court Delivers a Legal Victory for Combat-Injured Veterans

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, affirming that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims. This landmark ruling significantly expands the scope of retroactive benefits available to thousands of disabled veterans nationwide.

Background

Simon Soto, a retired Marine, applied for CRSC benefits in 2016. While the Navy approved his eligibility, it limited his retroactive compensation to just six years, citing the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702), which generally prohibits payment of claims older than six years. Soto challenged this cap, arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) was not subject to the Barring Act because it is administered under a distinct statutory scheme that gives the Secretary of the Navy independent settlement authority.

While a lower court initially sided with Soto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, prompting Soto to petition the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Ruling

In its opinion in Soto v. United States, No. 23-1053, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRSC statute does indeed grant the Secretary the authority to “settle” claims, thereby placing CRSC outside the Barring Act’s limitations period. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that CRSC’s statutory structure empowers the Secretary to determine eligibility and the amount due—hallmarks of settlement authority.

“The CRSC statute is just such a law,” wrote Justice Jackson. “It authorizes the Secretary of the military department to determine eligibility and calculate the amount payable. The Barring Act therefore does not apply.”

Read the full opinion: Soto v. United States (SCOTUS Opinion, June 12, 2025)

What This Means for Veterans

This decision clears a long-standing bureaucratic hurdle for veterans who were previously capped at six years of retroactive CRSC payments. With the ruling, veterans may now be eligible for compensation dating back to when their entitlement began—even if it was more than six years ago.

This is especially impactful for retirees who:

  • Received delayed disability ratings from the VA.
  • Were unaware of CRSC eligibility due to miscommunication or misinformation.
  • Faced systemic delays in applying.

Estimates suggest that over 9,000 veterans affected by the six-year limit may now pursue additional tax-free benefits. Veterans previously denied full back pay under CRSC should revisit their claims immediately. Legal assistance from attorneys experienced in military compensation law may be essential in pursuing the additional entitlements now available under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Legal Citations & Resources

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC did not represent the plaintiff in this case. Veterans seeking to understand how this decision may impact their Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) entitlements are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney experienced in military compensation law. Every case is fact-specific, and legal outcomes may vary.

After Air Force Discrimination Settlement, National Guard Memo Signals Internal Response to Harassment Concerns

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Civilian HR Memo Appears in Wake of High-Profile EEOC Settlement: A Sign of Policy Reinforcement at the National Guard Bureau?

In the aftermath of a significant EEOC-approved discrimination settlement involving a senior Air Force civilian, new developments have emerged at the Temple Army Readiness Center (TARC), home to several Army National Guard Bureau (NGB) offices, including Civilian Human Resources.

Recently, a memo titled “Civilian Management” authored by Lisa M. Sessions, HR Specialist (ARNG-HCM-CMB), was discovered posted at TARC. Though the document itself offers a high-level overview of HR responsibilities for Title 5 and Title 10 civilians, its timing and location suggest it may be more than routine communication.

While the memo does not reference any specific case or individual, those familiar with ongoing personnel matters at TARC note that it was likely posted in response to HR concerns and as a corrective step following the resolution of a federal discrimination case.

That case, which involved allegations of workplace harassment, racial and age-based discrimination, and a hostile supervisory environment was resolved in April 2025 with a multi-six-figure settlement and six-figure attorney fee reimbursement after formal EEOC review and judicial approval. According to public information, the complainant, a high-ranking African American federal civilian, had endured repeated incidents that prompted legal action and ultimately institutional remedies.

Legal professionals reviewing the matter believe the Civilian Management memo may reflect an effort by HR leadership at NGB to assert visibility, clarify roles, and demonstrate responsiveness to emerging personnel challenges. However, questions remain about the memo’s authorship authority, distribution method, and whether proper protocols were followed in its posting at a secure federal site like TARC.

More notably, the memo’s content, while affirming the administrative scope of Civilian HR does not explicitly reference EEO procedures, anti-harassment protocols, or the rights of employees to report misconduct, leaving some observers to question whether the posting sufficiently addressed the concerns it may have intended to quell.

“Given the legal and financial consequences federal agencies now face when harassment is mishandled, internal communications must be both timely and policy-compliant,” one legal analyst familiar with the matter commented. “Posting an HR overview may be part of a good-faith response, but without context or clear EEO guidance, the impact is limited.”

The Civilian Management branch of the Army National Guard oversees a broad array of personnel actions, from staffing and classification to labor relations and awards administration. Whether this memo reflects a shift in internal culture or simply a reactive gesture remains to be seen.

What is clear is that agencies across the federal spectrum are now operating under heightened scrutiny, especially when cases of discrimination and retaliation surface. As recent legal outcomes continue to shape institutional responses, effective policy implementation will be judged not only by documentation, but by procedural integrity and employee trust.

 

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it reflect the official views or statements of any government agency or party involved in the referenced matters. The authors do not represent the federal government, the complainant, or any individuals mentioned in this narrative. All opinions expressed are based on publicly available information and are intended to contribute to the broader discussion on workplace rights, procedural transparency, and civilian personnel policy within federal agencies. Readers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding specific circumstances.

Veteran USPHS Officer Challenges Unlawful Denial of Career-Defining Benefits in Federal Court

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), with over three decades of distinguished service across multiple branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that bureaucratic failures and unlawful actions within the Department of Health and Human Services unjustly derailed his career, denied him a well-earned promotion to the rank of Captain, and significantly reduced his retirement benefits.

The legal action, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks judicial review of the USPHS Board for Correction’s refusal to credit six months of volunteer hospice work toward the officer’s Training and Education (TED) credit, a critical factor in determining initial rank, career trajectory, and eligibility for timely promotion. Despite multiple requests dating back to 2005 and a detailed appeal filed in 2022, the Board rejected his application as “untimely” and unsupported, ignoring compelling new evidence and legal arguments. His reconsideration request was also summarily denied in less than 24 hours by a contractor who lacked legal authority to issue such a decision.

“This is a case of clear legal error compounded by procedural miscues,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C. “Our client was misinformed by USPHS officials at the time of his recommissioning. Because of that bad advice, he was brought in at too low a rank, which permanently altered his promotion timeline and ultimately cost him a Captain’s commission. To make matters worse, the agency then ignored its own precedent, denied reconsideration through improper channels, and turned a blind eye to its own regulations.”

The plaintiff, who served in the Navy, Army National Guard, and USPHS, had consistently received superior performance evaluations and was nominated for commendations, including for his role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. His lawsuit cites violations of federal administrative law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), and challenges the Board’s refusal to even consider the similarities between his case and a prior Board ruling (PHS BCMR Case No. 18-005) in which another officer was granted full TED credit under nearly identical circumstances.

“This isn’t just about one officer’s career,” Thayer emphasized. “It’s about ensuring that our federal service members are treated fairly, that their records reflect their actual contributions, and that agencies follow the law instead of arbitrarily denying benefits based on flawed or biased processes.”

If successful, the case could result in the officer’s record being corrected to reflect the higher TED credit, a retroactive promotion to Captain, and significant backpay and increased retirement benefits. The implications may also extend to other current and former USPHS officers who were misadvised or administratively mishandled.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, promotions, disability and retirement benefits, and wrongful termination.

 

Disclaimer

This press release is issued by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546-9575 |  www.militarydefense.com

VA Disability Calculator Errors and Supreme Court Ruling Put Veterans’ Ratings at Risk

Posted on by Becky Haugen

This year, veterans across the country were surprised to learn that the VA’s online disability calculator, something many rely on to estimate benefits has been giving incorrect results. A recent report by Stars and Stripes revealed that flaws in the system may have caused veterans to receive the wrong combined disability rating. That could mean thousands of dollars in lost compensation for those affected.

The VA acknowledged the issue but hasn’t announced a system-wide fix to correct the miscalculations. This is deeply troubling, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that makes it harder than ever to fix these mistakes after the fact.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough, 601 U.S. ___ (2025). The Court decided that VA decisions can only be overturned if they meet the extremely high bar of a “clear and unmistakable error,” also known as a CUE. That means even if the VA made a mistake in calculating your disability rating, you can’t just appeal the decision unless you can prove it was obviously and unquestionably wrong.

You can read the Supreme Court’s docket entry here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/23-713/

The recent problem with the calculator combined with this ruling puts the burden entirely on the veteran. You must now catch and fix rating errors early, before the VA finalizes its decision. Once your claim is denied or granted with the wrong rating, you may have little to no recourse.

Why is this so important? Your VA disability rating affects not only your monthly tax-free payments but also your access to healthcare, housing programs, education benefits, and your eligibility for military retirement benefits. For example, the difference between a 90% and a 100% rating can amount to more than $1,000 per month and over a lifetime, this can mean tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

Now more than ever, legal experts urge veterans, service members, and federal employees to take action to ensure their ratings are accurate. First, request a full copy of your VA claims file, also known as a C-file. This file includes all documents used to decide your case. Review your medical ratings, award letters, and the VA’s decision explanation. This is your first line of defense.

Next, don’t rely on the VA’s online tools. Use trusted independent resources like https://www.dav.org/disability-calculator to double-check how your disabilities were combined. VA math uses a formula that isn’t simple addition, and errors in the calculator have already affected many veterans.

If you find an error in your rating or award decision, you should file a correction immediately. Veterans can submit a Supplemental Claim using VA Form 20-0995, which is available online at: https://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-20-0995-ARE.pdf  The earlier you act, the more options you will have. Waiting too long can result in permanent loss of benefits.

Finally, consider seeking legal support. A VA-accredited attorney or representative can review your case, help you gather supporting evidence, and ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete before you submit it. Under the Supreme Court’s Bufkin decision, the window for correcting errors is now narrower than ever before.

As Attorney David P. Sheldon explains, “If you’re a veteran relying on a rating from the VA’s calculator, now is the time to double-check everything. Because under Bufkin, even honest mistakes might not be fixable after the fact.”

The takeaway is clear: every veteran must now approach their initial disability claim as if it’s their only chance to get it right. The legal system is no longer positioned to correct missteps made along the way, even when those missteps aren’t your fault.

For additional information on how the VA processes appeals and claim reviews, visit https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/. For independent help from a nonprofit, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program offers free legal assistance to qualifying veterans at https://vetsprobono.org.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, we are a nationally recognized law firm focused on protecting the rights of military service members, veterans, and federal employees. We help clients fight unjust discharges, benefit denials, security clearance revocations, and more.

Contact the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC  https://militarydefense.com

Disclaimer
This educational post does not constitute legal advice. Every claim and rating situation is unique. Veterans are encouraged to speak with a qualified attorney to review their individual cases.

Army Veteran Seeks Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, and Medical Retirement in High-Stakes Legal Remand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated Army sergeant wounded in combat and medically separated with only partial recognition of his injuries is seeking long-overdue justice through a remand application now before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The veteran, who served two combat tours during Operation Iraqi Freedom, has petitioned for the correction of his military records to include a full medical retirement, retroactive award of the Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge, and all associated benefits.

The filing follows a recent Order by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which, on May 6, 2025, remanded the sergeant’s case back to the ABCMR for reconsideration. The Court acted on a joint motion between the veteran and the Secretary of the Army, acknowledging serious questions about the Army’s prior denials of relief.

Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the veteran argues that the Army failed to recognize or adequately rate multiple combat-related injuries, despite clear evidence of wounds sustained during enemy engagements, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and exposure to toxic burn pits.

“This remand is not just an opportunity to revisit the record, it’s a second chance to deliver long-denied recognition and justice to a soldier who risked everything for his country,” said Thayer. “The failure to properly document and award combat-related injuries continues to be a systemic issue that disproportionately affects those who served in high-risk environments without the benefit of thorough or consistent record-keeping.”

The veteran’s petition details incidents including a stabbing by an Iraqi combatant, repeated blast exposures, and a severe knee injury, as well as psychological trauma documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs as service-connected. Despite these facts, the veteran received only a 10% disability rating upon separation and was denied the awards that would typically accompany such injuries under Army Regulation 600-8-22.

The filing also invokes the “liberal consideration” standard under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h), which requires that claims involving PTSD or TBI related to combat be reviewed with deference to the service member’s experience and credible evidence.

Thayer added, “If this veteran had remained with his original unit a few months longer, he likely would have received the Combat Action Badge when it was retroactively issued. The only thing that separated him from eligibility was paperwork, not merit or service.”

The ABCMR is now tasked with reconsidering the veteran’s application in light of the Court’s order, new medical evidence, and expert findings. A favorable ruling could result in back pay, a corrected discharge status, and permanent disability retirement, a rare but vital remedy for service members whose sacrifices have been overlooked.

 

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented service members, veterans, and federal employees across all branches of the armed forces in matters involving courts-martial, security clearance appeals, military record corrections, medical retirement, and whistleblower protections. With decades of experience and a reputation for aggressive and principled advocacy, the firm is committed to defending the constitutional and statutory rights of those who serve.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
(202) 546-9575
lhttps://militarydefense.com

 

DISCLAIMER:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC does not represent the individual named in the remand application unless otherwise stated. Statements made herein are based on publicly filed legal documents and do not reveal confidential client information.