Month: July 2025

USPHS Commander Seeks Correction of Records After Disputed Reprimand and Denial of Relief by Surgeon General

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commander is fighting to restore the officer’s reputation and career following a reprimand, contending it was unjust, retaliatory, and issued outside the bounds of lawful authority. The case, filed with the Board for Correction of Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Records (BCMR), argues that the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) issued in October 2023, was procedurally and legally flawed.

Represented by attorney Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the Commander’s filing asserts that the LOR was issued not only in violation of Commissioned Corps policy (CCI 211.04 and CCI 211.07) but was also motivated by retaliation after the officer raised concerns about understaffing and promotion irregularities within the Bureau of Health Services at the Eloy Detention Center.

According to the complaint, the officer formally requested relief through the Surgeon General’s redress process, submitting evidence of improper conduct, lack of authority by the issuing official, and violations of due process. But the Surgeon General, VADM Vivek Murthy, ultimately declined to grant relief, stating that “the evidence presented does not demonstrate a violation of law, executive order, regulation, or policy,” nor was the issuance “arbitrary and capricious.”

Attorney Morgan disputes this finding. “The facts clearly show that the reprimand was issued by someone without the lawful authority to do so. It followed weeks of the Commander raising staffing concerns and requesting help. Instead of support, the officer was punished for performing the duties assigned—and that’s precisely why the BCMR exists: to correct these injustices,” said Morgan.

The Commander’s petition to the BCMR requests:

  • Rescission of the LOR;
  • Expungement from the officer’s official record;
  • Restoration of lost specialty pay and backpay; and,
  • Any other equitable relief the Board finds appropriate.

The filing includes legal arguments grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, and internal USPHS regulations. The Commander also provided documentation showing that the decisions regarding patient scheduling were consistent with operational policy during a staffing shortfall—not acts of misconduct.

The case represents a broader concern for many USPHS officers navigating opaque disciplinary procedures that can derail careers, especially when whistleblowing or reporting internal issues.

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 employment law firm. With more than two decades of experience, the firm defends service members and federal employees in cases involving courts-martial, administrative separations, security clearances, and record corrections.

Disclaimer:
This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and outcomes will vary depending on specific facts and circumstances.

A Promising Career Delayed: PHS Officer Seeks Correction After Mischaracterized Interservice Transfer

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps is seeking a correction to her military records after discovering that years of prior service in the U.S. Army have been excluded from her promotion timeline due to a mischaracterized transfer process. Represented by Attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the officer has filed a formal application to the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records.

This case centers around a troubling bureaucratic failure: despite receiving multiple assurances from PHS officials that her five years of active-duty Army service would be recognized under an interservice transfer, the officer was later told that her commissioning into the PHS was processed as a direct appointment, rendering her previous rank and time in service irrelevant for promotion eligibility.

“When an officer makes career-defining decisions based on guidance from the very institution that recruits them, the burden to correct misinformation should not fall on the officer alone,” said Attorney Thayer. “We are asking for the recognition of service she has already rendered with distinction.”

The officer had served honorably as an Army psychologist and was selected for promotion to Major (O-4) before joining the PHS. She accepted her commission believing her time in service would count toward her next promotion. Only after repeated follow-ups did she discover that her file reflected a promotion eligibility date nearly three years later than expected.

This misclassification has real-world consequences. Without correction, it not only delays her promotion and financial compensation but may also impede future career advancement.

In her role at the Department of Defense, she has excelled by taking on supervisory duties typically assigned to more senior officers, earning a PHS Commendation Medal, and receiving nomination for a prestigious clinician award. Yet her official rank does not reflect this performance, due to what her legal team describes as administrative negligence.

The filing requests her immediate eligibility for promotion to Lieutenant Commander (O-4), retroactive to her accession date, along with corresponding backpay. In the alternative, the officer seeks compensation equal to the accession bonus she would have received had she been correctly classified.

“This case is not just about one officer,” Thayer emphasized. “It’s about setting a precedent to ensure that no service member is penalized for trusting the system. We expect accountability, clarity, and fairness for those who dedicate their lives to service.”

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm that defends the rights of uniformed service members and federal employees. With decades of experience in courts-martial, promotion disputes, medical board appeals, and security clearance litigation, the firm is committed to ensuring justice for those who serve.

Disclaimer:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. For personalized legal assistance, please contact an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

 

Why Discharge Records Matter: GAO Report and Supreme Court Ruling Show Veterans Must Get It Right the First Time

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When service members leave the military, what gets written down on paper, especially in their discharge/separation records can shape the rest of their lives. Those documents can decide whether a veteran gets the health care they need, access to housing, a shot at a stable job, or the ability to attend college. The words printed on a DD-214 don’t just describe how someone left service. They become the gateway, or the roadblock to the benefits they’ve earned.

But what happens when those records aren’t complete? What if important details, like a PTSD diagnosis, sexual trauma, or a brain injury, weren’t included before they left the military? Can those facts be added later? Can justice be restored?

In 2025, two powerful updates made one thing very clear: veterans need to make sure their records are complete and accurate from the very start. First, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a major report showing that military discharge review boards are not following the rules. They’re supposed to give “liberal consideration” to veterans with service-connected trauma, but in practice, they’re not applying that rule fairly. In fact, the GAO found that veterans with similar circumstances were often treated very differently depending on which service branch handled their case. The Air Force Discharge Review Board, for example, approved just 18 percent of cases where liberal consideration should have been applied. Other boards, like the Army, approved closer to 49 percent. Even more troubling, many of these boards couldn’t explain why they made the decisions they did. Some didn’t even post the outcomes online, even though they’re required to do so.

Just a few months earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in Bufkin v. McDonough that the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t consider any new evidence if that evidence wasn’t already in the record at the time of the original benefits decision. This means that if a veteran had trauma, but it wasn’t properly diagnosed or wasn’t mentioned at all in their paperwork, the VA can’t go back and add that later. That door is now closed.

For veterans who’ve lived with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, or military sexual trauma, this ruling is a wake-up call. Many didn’t speak up during service. Others weren’t diagnosed until years later. Some left the military under less-than-honorable conditions because of behavior linked to their trauma. These veterans have spent years trying to explain what happened, hoping to upgrade their discharge status and get access to care. But now, if their record didn’t include the right facts at the right time, they may be locked out of the system forever.

So what does all this mean? It means that the record, the discharge form, the medical files, the evaluations, and the testimony needs to be right the first time. Veterans can’t afford to wait and fix it later. The Supreme Court and the GAO have shown us that once the system decides, there’s often no turning back. That’s why getting legal help early matters so much. Lawyers who understand the discharge process can help veterans gather the right evidence, submit the strongest possible claims, and fight back when decisions don’t follow the law. They can help connect the dots between trauma and service, between symptoms and conduct, and between what a veteran lived through and what the military wrote down.

We’ve seen what happens when veterans don’t have the right records. We’ve also seen what happens when they do. With the right support and the full truth in hand, many are able to get their discharge status upgraded, their VA benefits restored, and their dignity returned. No one should be left behind because the paperwork didn’t tell their full story.

If you’re a veteran facing these challenges, or you know someone who is, now is the time to act. The rules have changed. The burden is higher on the veteran to assure their discharge records are accurate and complete.  It’s important to get it right with help from those who know how to work with the PEB, MEB, and the BCMR.

 

References and Resources

GAO Report – GAO-25-107354 (2025):
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107354

Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 22-883 (March 2025):
Supreme Court Opinion

Stars and Stripes Coverage:
https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-07-28/gao-finds-inconsistent-discharge-standards-18584037.html

DoD Clarification of Liberal Consideration (Hagel and Kurta Memos):
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1292904/dod-clarifies-liberal-consideration-for-veterans-discharge-upgrade-requests/

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm. We defend service members’ rights in discharge upgrades, VA benefits, security clearance revocations, and correction of military records. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to helping veterans and their families secure the justice and recognition they deserve.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is different. Veterans seeking benefits or a discharge upgrade should consult a licensed attorney to discuss their individual situation.

Centralizing Coast Guard Legal Processes Will Severely Undermine Coasties Seeking Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When you serve in the Coast Guard, especially out in remote sectors or small boat stations, you learn to depend on your crew, your command, and your local support systems. That includes legal support. So, when the Coast Guard announced it was centralizing Enlisted Administrative Separation Boards,  its legal services, shifting key functions and case processing to a single hub, many in the ranks raised an eyebrow. And they should. Because while this move may look like “streamlining” from the top, for the average enlisted Coastie trying to fight to be retained, it feels more like the Coast Guard just pulled up the ladder.

Let’s be real: Coasties want to serve the Nation and when that is challenged, what they need is access to attorneys who understand their case, to an advocate who knows the local command climate, and to someone who can walk them through the complex processes without judgment or delay.

But with centralization, all of that becomes harder.

Instead of walking down the hallway to meet with a legal officer or reaching out to a JAG familiar with their unit, members now face a faceless, distant bureaucracy. Legal processing centers won’t have the context of the cutter you served on, the command climate you endured, or the operational pressures you faced. They won’t know the nuances of your unit’s leadership or the unique dynamics of life in the CG. Most importantly, they won’t know you.  And that lack of context can mean the difference between being heard or being dismissed.

The impact isn’t just emotional. It’s procedural. Under centralization, communication will flow through generic portals, and not trustworthy legal officers. And for members in isolated duty stations or afloat commands, just getting a response in a timely manner could become its own battle.

Access to justice shouldn’t depend on your zip code or how far you are from a legal office. But this move risks exactly that. It creates a new kind of inequity within the ranks where some Coasties, based on location or assignment, have less meaningful access to legal redress than others. That’s not just bad policy; it’s a threat to due process.

Federal courts have long upheld the principle that service members, though operating within a unique system, are still entitled to fundamental fairness in administrative actions and legal review. When the system becomes so distant and complex that members can’t effectively navigate it, it raises serious questions about whether that fairness is being upheld.

Even more concerning, centralization also raises the very real possibility of Unlawful Command Influence.  Rather than having Board members selected from local commands, presumably members are now generated from USCG Headquarters.  USCGHQ already have an incredible amount of discretion in approving Board separation results.  This will certainly undermine the fairness of the Board process and that is going to mean Coasties do not get a fair shake.

We’ve seen this before in other branches, where so-called “efficiencies” made it harder for service members to be heard. Coast Guard members deserve better. They deserve legal access that is local, personal, and responsive. They deserve a system that understands their lives, not just their case numbers.

This centralization plan may serve bureaucratic goals, but it does so at the cost of individual rights. The Coast Guard can do better. It must.

Because when justice is out of reach, morale sinks, trust erodes and that makes every mission harder.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
Located in Washington, D.C., The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, represents service members from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, including the U.S. Coast Guard. We specialize in military justice, appeals, boards of correction, and federal employment law. With decades of experience, our team is dedicated to defending the rights and careers of those who serve.

Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a Coast Guard member facing legal challenges or considering filing a complaint, you should seek advice from an attorney experienced in military law.

A Cadet’s Leadership, Not Misconduct, Should Define His Future

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A promising Air Force Academy cadet, just steps away from graduating and becoming a commissioned officer, now faces a 10-month probation that could unfairly derail his military career. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has formally petitioned the Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy to reduce the punishment, arguing the penalty is unjust and disproportionate.

The cadet, a senior and leader on the Air Force Academy’s varsity soccer team, did not commit a crime or violate Air Force regulations. He was not accused of physical misconduct, nor did he participate in the behavior that prompted a larger investigation into team traditions. Instead, his only alleged offense was being present during horseplay that was longstanding, widely accepted, and even condoned by coaches and senior cadets.

Despite this, he has been grouped with others who faced far more serious allegations, including abusive conduct, indecent acts and is now facing the same punishment.

“This cadet followed the example set by coaches, upperclassmen, and the very culture the Academy allowed to persist for years,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon. “To hold him equally accountable for something he didn’t do and wasn’t expected to report under military law is not only unfair, it sends a dangerous message to future leaders.”

Notably, multiple witnesses, including the cadet allegedly impacted by the incident, attested that no misconduct occurred and that the environment allowed cadets to speak up if they were uncomfortable. When interviewed, one of his teammates said “the cadet was always respectful, he made sure I was okay. I trust him and would serve under him without hesitation.”

If the 10-month probation stands, this cadet will lose thousands in military pay, miss his scheduled pilot training, and fall behind in career advancement, all despite his high performance, a clean record, and full cooperation with investigators.

The legal brief highlights inconsistencies in past disciplinary actions at the Academy, citing other cadets who committed serious misconduct, yet were allowed to graduate and commission. The firm’s request calls on the Air Force Academy to recognize that this young man’s actions do not warrant a punishment that could define his career forever.

 

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a nationally recognized firm based in Washington, D.C., representing military service members and federal employees across the globe. With decades of experience in military justice and administrative law, the firm advocates for the rights of those who serve—and ensures due process is not just a promise, but a guarantee.

 

Legal Disclaimer
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case.

“Justice For A Chaplain”: Federal Court Sides With Army Officer

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A U.S. Army captain and chaplain has won an important legal victory in federal court after a years-long effort to clear her record of an unjust reprimand. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Army’s decision to reject a military review board’s recommendation to remove the reprimand was “arbitrary and capricious,” sending the matter back to the Secretary of the Army for reconsideration.

The officer, a decorated chaplain with nearly a decade of service, was stationed at the prestigious 101st Airborne Division when a professional conflict led to a series of investigations. Though she was never formally relieved of duty and was recommended for retention by a Board of Inquiry, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) remained in her permanent file, potentially jeopardizing her career, future promotions, and retirement benefits.

The Army’s own Board for Correction of Military Records agreed with the officer’s appeal and voted to have the reprimand removed. But in April 2024, a Deputy Assistant Secretary overruled that decision with a brief one-paragraph denial, offering no substantial explanation.

In a strongly worded opinion issued July 14, 2025, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan criticized the Army’s handling of the case, stating the decision lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider the Board’s findings. The court has now ordered the Army to revisit the matter and provide a lawful, properly reasoned decision.

“This ruling doesn’t just impact one officer, it sends a message that accountability and fairness still matter, even in military bureaucracy,” said Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represents the officer. “It’s a step toward restoring a distinguished career that was nearly derailed by an unexplained administrative action.”

The officer has served honorably as a chaplain supporting the emotional and spiritual well-being of soldiers under pressure. Her reinstatement into good standing would preserve her opportunity for continued service and eventual military retirement.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents military service members and federal employees across the globe in matters involving military justice, adverse actions, security clearances, medical retirement, and records corrections. The firm is nationally known for its commitment to justice, integrity, and results.

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. If you are facing an issue involving a military reprimand or adverse personnel action, contact a qualified attorney for legal counsel.

Army Veteran Seeks Justice in Medical Retirement Appeal to Correction Board

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A retired Army National Guard noncommissioned officer has petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct what he says was a deeply flawed administrative process that failed to account for his combat-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) and misrepresented the nature of his discharge.

During a 2004 deployment to Iraq, the veteran was knocked unconscious by an improvised explosive device (IED), resulting in a diagnosed TBI and long-term behavioral health and cognitive impairments. Despite a permanent psychiatric profile, decertification from his instructor role, and a commander’s statement recommending retirement due to diminished performance, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) later found him “fit for duty.”

Shortly afterward, a Qualitative Retention Board from the Arkansas Army National Guard determined he would not be retained, offering no explanation for its decision. As a result, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve, not formally discharged for medical reasons, nor provided with a retirement disability.

The petition, filed by The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, details how the original MEB and subsequent reviews failed to incorporate key medical records or fully consider the extent of his injuries. It also alleges violations of legal procedures, including failure to disclose advisory opinions to the applicant, as required by federal law.

“This veteran’s case is a textbook example of how bureaucratic gaps and incomplete records can undermine justice for injured service members,” attorney David P. Sheldon confirms. “He was medically profiled, removed from his instructional position, and ultimately sidelined without proper recognition or review of his injuries. We are urging the Board to finally correct the record.”

The ABCMR filing is requesting a new evaluation that includes all relevant Department of Veterans Affairs and military medical records, as well as consideration for medical retirement status retroactive to his transfer from service.

When One Piece of Paper Destroys a Career: The Hidden Danger of a Reprimand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

He was the kind of officer others looked up to. Showed up early, stayed late, and took care of his troops. When something needed fixing, he made sure it got done. He was tough, but fair and exactly the kind of leader you want in charge when things get hard. And that’s what got him in trouble.

After years of service, countless sacrifices, and a spotless record, one memo changed everything. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, a GOMOR, landed in his official file, accusing him of “toxic leadership.” What did that mean? No one could really say. The phrase has no clear definition. It’s often thrown around when commanders simply don’t like a particular subordinate. Maybe the officer was too direct. Maybe he pushed his team harder than others. Maybe he didn’t play political games.

And just like that, his career stalled.

GOMORs, unlike regular counseling or feedback, are powerful and dangerous. They don’t just sit in a drawer. They go into your permanent record. They can make you ineligible for promotions, prevent you from transferring, or even push you out of the military completely. They can be used as a quiet way to end someone’s career, without any real due process, evidence, or chance to defend yourself.

The worst part? It’s happening more and more. Officers are getting labeled with “toxic leadership” or “loss of confidence” a vague term that carries heavy weight. Many of these officers are the ones who hold their teams accountable, who push for excellence, who challenge the status quo. But when leadership changes, or when someone higher up decides they want a different kind of personality in the position, the hammer falls.

One reprimand. One accusation. And suddenly, years of service are on the line.

That’s where the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon steps in.

Senior Military Attorney David P. Sheldon and his team have seen it all, officers who are blindsided, confused, and scared. They’ve worked with clients who were told they had no future, no promotion, and no choice but to resign. But with the right legal strategy, things can change.

Sometimes that means fighting to remove the GOMOR altogether. Other times it means correcting the record, filing an appeal, or pushing back against a board that rubber-stamped a punishment without asking questions. The team at David P. Sheldon’s, PLLC firm knows the system inside and out and they know how to affirm the service member’s rights to fair career adjudication.

They’ve helped officers get unfair reprimands removed, promotions reinstated, and careers put back on track. And in cases where the system isn’t accurate, they’ve taken the fight all the way to federal court. Because no one should lose everything they’ve worked for because of one biased letter or a leadership change that didn’t go their way.

The military is built on rules. But sometimes, those rules are applied unfairly. And when that happens, you need someone in your corner who knows how to fight back.

If you or someone you know is facing a GOMOR or LOR, especially one based on incorrect or vague claims or office politics, don’t wait. The earlier you act, the more options you have. One memo shouldn’t define your service, your future, or your legacy.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is here to help you protect all that you’ve earned. Because your career shouldn’t end with a whisper in the hallway, it should be honored for the years of dedication you gave to this country.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally respected military and federal employment law firm. Led by founder David Sheldon, the firm represents service members in GOMOR rebuttals, LOR removal, promotion restoration, discharge upgrades, security clearance appeals, and correction of military records. With decades of combined experience, the firm is committed to defending those who defend our nation.

www.militarydefense.com

Legal Disclaimer:

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or sharing this content. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult with a licensed attorney.