September 2025

Army Family Files Federal Lawsuit Over Privacy Act Violations After Unlawful Release of Records

Posted on September 30, 2025September 30, 2025 by Becky Haugen

A married Army couple has filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging the Department of the Army unlawfully released sensitive personal information protected under federal law. At the heart of the case is a military police report that contained unredacted details about the family, including Social Security numbers, Department of Defense identification numbers, dates of birth, and the names of their minor children.

The couple contends that the release of this information, without their knowledge or consent, directly violated the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, which prohibits government agencies from disclosing personal records contained within a “system of records” absent a written request or authorization. The law makes clear that any intentional or willful release of protected data that causes harm opens the door to civil liability.

Here, the unredacted report was transmitted to a third party during a private custody dispute. Not only was the disclosure made without any lawful basis, but the Army itself later conceded through its Installation Management Command that the report had been released in violation of federal law. The complaint alleges the release was willful and intentional, even occurring after the Army employee responsible received a system-generated warning about disseminating personally protected information.

Legal precedent strengthens the family’s claim. In Doe v. U.S. Department of Justice and Chambers v. U.S. Department of the Interior, the D.C. Circuit confirmed that unlawful disclosures causing adverse effects, such as financial costs or emotional distress, are actionable. The complaint cites these principles in establishing all four required elements of a Privacy Act damages claim:

The police report was a record within a system of records.
The Army improperly disclosed the record.
The disclosure was willful and intentional.
The plaintiffs suffered adverse effects, including more than $20,000 in legal fees and lasting emotional harm.

“This is not just a technical violation,” said their counsel, Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “When the Army released a document it was explicitly forbidden to share, it violated a fundamental promise of privacy and accountability. The consequences for this family were immediate and severe.”

The lawsuit seeks damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief under the Privacy Act, sending a clear message: military families, like all Americans, are entitled to the full protections Congress enacted to keep their personal information secure.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing or sharing this content does not create an attorney–client relationship.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier boutique law firm based in Washington, D.C., representing service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families nationwide. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for justice in military, administrative, and federal courts.

When the Military Orders Silence: The Hegseth Directive, Navy Reporting Guidance, and the First Amendment Risks

Posted on September 29, 2025 by Becky Haugen

New Navy Guidance: Reporting Improper Social Media Use

On September 15, the Chief of Naval Operations released a memo instructing how to receive, refer, and track reports of “unprofessional personal social media use.” Navy Times The memo directs that reports be forwarded through the chain of command, with periodic status updates up to the CNO level, but states that the Chief of Naval Personnel is not to perform investigations unless the matter warrants accountability tied to unprofessional use. Navy Times

This formal process institutionalizes oversight and surveillance of Sailors’ online behavior. It underscores that social media posts are no longer purely personal acts: they are subject to command visibility and may trigger review or discipline.

The Navy Social Media Handbook also confirms that Sailors remain subject to the UCMJ at all times, including off-duty, and that “improper or inappropriate online behavior … may result in administrative or disciplinary action.” CSP Navy /navy.mil

Thus, the Navy is actively building procedural infrastructure to catch and escalate online speech potentially deemed unprofessional.

The “Hegseth Order” & Posts about Charlie Kirk

In parallel, top Defense leadership has signaled strong intent to punish service members for celebratory or mocking posts about the death of Charlie Kirk, a private citizen not holding public office. Reports suggest that commanders have suspended or removed personnel whose posts are under review. Navy Times

Because the target was not in government, service members’ comments about Kirk do not implicate contempt under UCMJ Article 88, which applies to certain high officials. And unless there is a whistleblower scenario or clear misconduct, these posts do not fall cleanly within protected communications.

What is left is a commander invoking good order and discipline as justification to suppress speech.

Constitutional & UCMJ Constraints

Parker v. Levy and Military Speech Limits

The Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), upheld that military speech can be restricted when necessary to prevent interference with duty, morale, or discipline. But that case also implies that restrictions must be tied to actual harm or disruption, not imagined ones.

Lawfulness of Orders & Narrow Tailoring

Under military law (e.g. the Manual for Courts-Martial), a service member must obey a lawful order. If an order is overbroad, arbitrary, or lacks a proper military purpose, it may itself be invalid.

An order to silence commentary about a private citizen, without showing that it actually harms unit cohesion, is at risk of being invalidated.

Risk of Political Suppression

When the content suppressed is political or ideological rather than directly linked to military function, the risk is that discipline becomes a form of political censorship. Courts have been wary of allowing the UCMJ to be used as a blunt instrument for silencing dissenting views that do not threaten mission performance (Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980)).

Interaction with Navy Reporting Memo

The Navy’s new memo strengthens the command’s ability to monitor, log, and escalate social media concerns up the chain, potentially amplifying the reach of broad speech restrictions like the Hegseth directive.

Because reporting is formalized, a sailor’s post might be flagged even without direct local command knowledge, increasing the chance of review or discipline for commentary that might otherwise have remained unremarked.

That procedural structure amplifies the stakes: if the order is invalid, the entire reporting and investigative chain may be operating under unjustified authority.

What Service Members Should Know

Not all speech is punishable, but suppression must be tied to real discipline or mission harm, not mere political disagreement.
Orders must be lawful. A directive to punish posts about a private citizen must bow to constitutional limits or risk being struck down.
Procedural rights matter. If accused, a service member is entitled to notice, to respond, and to challenge whether the order was lawful.
Representation is essential. Where broad or vague commands are used to silence dissent, legal counsel must push back, not merely accept “command authority” as absolute.

The interplay between the Hegseth directive, new Navy reporting protocols, and constitutional protection presents a serious danger: that normal political speech by service members could be censored under the guise of discipline.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we stand ready to defend service members whose voices are suppressed. If you are under threat of investigation or discipline for your online speech, we can challenge overreach and help protect both your career and your rights.

References & Resources

Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) – Full Text
Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) – Full Text
Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. §§ 888, 892, 933, 934) – UCMJ Articles
Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, ¶14 – 2024
Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034 – Cornell Law School

A retired U.S. Navy Commander praises the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon for Providing Exceptional Counsel During a Complex Military Legal Matter

Posted on September 29, 2025September 29, 2025 by Becky Haugen

As a career Navy officer, this Commander never expected to need legal counsel — but when complex military legal challenges arose, they knew they needed elite representation. From the very first call, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provided the guidance, clarity, and advocacy that turned a difficult chapter into a victorious one. Here’s what this Commander had to say about our work, our values, and why they trust our team without hesitation.

“As a retired Military Officer facing complex legal issues, we felt overwhelmed and uncertain about where to turn. From the very first consultation, David Sheldon LLC and team demonstrated not only a deep understanding of military law, but also a genuine respect for our service and situation. Their dedication, attention to detail, and strategic approach gave us confidence every step of the way. We had never been in a position of need for legal counsel but selecting Sheldon was a great choice and the results superlative.”

Commander, US Navy

Protecting Your Future: Legal Guidance for Army Aviators Facing Forced Resignation

Posted on September 26, 2025September 26, 2025 by Becky Haugen

A Major Transformation in Army Aviation

The U.S. Army recently announced that it will cut approximately 6,500 active-duty aviation positions over the next two years as part of a sweeping shift away from manned aircraft toward unmanned systems (Army Times; The Defense Post). These changes will not only reshape aviation units but also leave many skilled aviators facing career-altering decisions, including resigning their commissions.

For those who may soon be selected, the process will be swift and administrative in nature. Yet what happens now—how you prepare your records and position yourself—will directly affect your future rights, benefits, and career options.

Why Record Accuracy Matters

When separation boards, “talent panels,” or reassignment authorities review an aviator’s case, their decisions often hinge on the accuracy and completeness of personnel and medical records. Errors, omissions, or inconsistencies can undermine your position, limit your appeal options, and even cost you valuable benefits.

Personnel Records

Ensure your Officer Evaluation Reports (OERs), awards, flight qualifications, and training histories are accurate and complete.
Resolve discrepancies between official Army systems and your personal records.

Medical Records

Verify that all conditions, diagnoses, waivers, and flight physicals are up to date.
Seek correction or clarification of any entries that misstate your health history or flight status.

Supporting Documentation

Retain copies of correspondence, memoranda, and emails related to your aviation career, reassignment, or performance.
Document any waivers or declined opportunities in writing for future clarity.

Protecting Your Rights in Transition

If notified to resign or reclassify, you may have options to appeal or seek reconsideration. These processes often come with strict deadlines. Consulting legal counsel—whether through Judge Advocate General (JAG) services or qualified civilian representation—can be essential in ensuring your case is handled fairly.

Additionally, ensure that your pay, time-in-service, and leave balances are accurately recorded, as these figures will directly affect your separation pay, retirement credit, and post-service benefits.

Steps Aviators Should Take Now

Review and Correct Records – Submit corrections promptly through the appropriate personnel channels.
Update Medical Files – Confirm that all medical conditions and treatments are documented.
Organize Your Documentation – Keep both digital and physical copies of all service-related records.
Seek Counsel Early – Do not wait until you receive notice; understanding your rights now is key.
Plan Your Next Chapter – Secure certifications, validate flight hours, and prepare for transition to civilian or Reserve opportunities.

A Final Word to Army Aviators

You have dedicated your careers to the cockpit and to the Army mission. While the transition away from manned aviation may not have been your choice, how you respond now can safeguard your honor, your benefits, and your family’s future.

Be proactive. Be precise. Protect your record, because it protects you.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents military service members, federal employees, and uniformed officers nationwide. Our attorneys have decades of experience in military justice, administrative law, and defending the rights of those who serve. From courts-martial defense to correction of military records and retirement benefits appeals, we fight to ensure fairness and justice for every client.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney–client relationship. Service members facing separation or forced resignation should consult with qualified legal counsel about their specific situation.

Federal Medical Malpractice Settlement Reached After Administrative Denials, Federal Filings, and Painstaking Advocacy

Posted on September 25, 2025September 26, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Federal Medical Malpractice Settlement—Fox Army Health Center, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

A Life Forever Changed: Settlement Brings Justice, But Not the Years Lost

After years of relentless legal battles, a long-awaited settlement has been reached in a medical malpractice case brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) against the United Army. Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the client, a retired service member and federal civilian employee, faced a devastating medical injustice that will forever shorten his life.

For years, the client entrusted military medical providers with his annual flight physicals, a critical requirement for his career. These examinations were supposed to safeguard not just his professional readiness, but his health. Yet, despite his family history of prostate cancer and his repeated disclosures of that risk, military medical providers at Fox Army Health Center, Redstone Arsenal, Alabama failed to perform the basic and recommended PSA testing for three consecutive years.

The consequence was catastrophic. By the time the cancer was discovered, it was Stage 4 and terminal, with metastasis spread to the bones and spine. His prognosis, once filled with promise and years of service ahead, was now tragically shortened.

The Veteran pursued justice not for financial gain, but for accountability and recognition of the harm done. His fight exposed systemic failures in military healthcare, failures that left him without the chance for earlier treatment that could have extended his life.

“This is a case about accountability and dignity,” said Attorney Dylan Thayer. “Our client trusted the system designed to protect him, and the system failed him. While the settlement offers some measure of justice, it comes at a heartbreaking cos, years of life lost that no legal resolution can restore.”

The settlement marks the conclusion of a legal journey that spanned years of administrative denials, federal filings, and painstaking advocacy. It is a victory that carries both relief and sorrow: relief that justice has been recognized, and sorrow that justice came too late to change the ultimate outcome.

This case highlights a critical reminder for military and civilian healthcare systems alike: adherence to medical standards is not optional. The costs of negligence are not measured in dollars alone, but in human lives and the time unjustly taken from them.

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

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a national law firm dedicated to representing service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, administrative law, federal employment, and medical malpractice. The firm has built a reputation for delivering results in complex cases where the stakes are life, liberty, and livelihood.

Disclaimer:

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

Posted on September 24, 2025September 25, 2025 by Becky Haugen

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

A Step Backward

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to shut down the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) is not just about ending an advisory group. It is part of a broader push to reshape the image of the military under a narrow “warrior ethos.” In doing so, it risks violating the rights of service members and weakening national security.

For nearly 75 years, DACOWITS gave women in uniform a voice inside the Pentagon, flagging problems with equipment, training, health care, and readiness. Its closure silences that voice. Even more troubling, it signals a willingness to roll back decades of progress where women have earned the right, through law and sacrifice, to serve in every capacity, including combat.

And this was not theoretical progress. DACOWITS directly shaped the military’s ability to function effectively. As of 2025, approximately 94% of DACOWITS recommendations have been either fully or partially adopted by the Department of Defense since its creation in 1951. Those changes, from equipment design to personnel policies, had real, measurable impacts on readiness and national security. Closing the committee risks losing a proven engine of reform.

The Legal Reality

Hegseth does not have the legal power to remove women from combat or other positions simply because of their sex. Congress repealed combat-exclusion laws years ago, and the Supreme Court has made clear that discrimination based on gender requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Any attempt to bar women would trigger immediate lawsuits and constitutional challenges under the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.

Uniformed service members—whether Army, Navy, Space Force, NOAA, or the U.S. Public Health Service—fall under Title 10. That means their rights are protected by federal law, and any blanket policy to exclude them based on sex would be unlawful.

Security Consequences

This is more than a legal fight. Removing women from full participation in service threatens national security. Research consistently shows that diverse teams perform better, especially in complex missions overseas and at home. By closing down advisory committees and silencing voices, the Pentagon narrows its talent pool at a time when recruiting and retention are already at crisis levels.

For non-armed services like the USPHS and NOAA, which often deploy alongside the military in disaster zones or global health missions, the chilling effect is real. Labeling inclusion efforts as “woke” undermines critical coordination and risks sidelining officers who are already vital to national response efforts.

A Dangerous Precedent

Beyond the issue of gender, the new directive restricting service members’ ability to speak at outside events and panels further shortens the lines of communication between the Pentagon and the public. When commanders control not just operations but also outside speech, transparency suffers. Service members—military, federal, or Tribal—are left with fewer avenues to raise concerns, seek reforms, or expose wrongdoing.

The Path Forward

Commanders and service members who find themselves targeted by discriminatory policies are not without recourse. They can:

File Equal Opportunity complaints
Pursue Inspector General investigations
Petition their respective Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records (ABCMR, BCNR, etc.)
Seek judicial review where appropriate

Our firm stands ready to defend these rights. Title 10 protections apply across the spectrum of uniformed service, and no secretary can erase them by memo.

Conclusion

Rolling back opportunities for women under the guise of “readiness” is both unlawful and unwise. America is strongest when all who are willing and able to serve are judged on merit, not gender. Shuttering transparency and silencing voices threatens readiness, justice, and the very values the military and federal service are sworn to uphold.

References, Resources & Citations

Politico, Hegseth shutters Pentagon women’s advisory group, clamps down on outside appearances (Sept. 2025) Politico
Hegseth dissolves women’s military committee over ‘divisive feminist agenda’ (The Guardian, Sept 23 2025) The Guardian
Hegseth ‘proudly’ terminates Women, Peace, and Security program supported by Trump (Washington Post, Apr 2025) Center for Strategic and International Studies, Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 and DoD Implementation (2017–2024 reports) Washington Post
Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS), commentary on WPS strategy rollbacks (2025) GIWPS
Department of Homeland Security Report on the Implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act (2022) DHS
Department of State Implementation Plan for the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security Department of State
Women, Peace and Security: Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (DoD, 2020) Policy Brief
Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-68) Congress
DACOWITS Annual Reports to the Secretary of Defense (archival, 1951–2024) DACOWITS
Title 10, U.S. Code, governing armed and uniformed services Cornell
Department of Defense Inspector General and GAO reports on military recruiting and readiness (2023–2025) GAO Readiness Reports

Army Veteran Wins Medical Retirement After Long Fight for Justice

Posted on September 23, 2025 by Becky Haugen

After more than a decade of pain, appeals, and repeated denials, a U.S. Army veteran has finally secured justice. On September 12, 2025, following a formal hearing before the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), the Board recognized what years of medical evidence had already made clear: the veteran’s combat-related injuries rendered him unfit for service and entitled him to a medical retirement.

This decision marks the end of a grueling journey that began with a Humvee accident in Iraq in 2008, where the soldier sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple orthopedic injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Rather than receiving the disability evaluation process required by Army regulations, he was left in limbo for years on temporary medical profiles, eventually separated at the end of his service contract in 2011 without the medical retirement he deserved. Despite his documented conditions, which later earned him a 100% permanent and total disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Army refused to grant him retirement benefits. For over a decade, he fought through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records and multiple PEB reviews, compiling an extensive record of medical evidence, VA ratings, and legal arguments to prove what should have been recognized years ago, that he was permanently unfit for service. The member even filed suit in District Court, obtaining a remand, which led to his ultimate victory.

“This case demonstrates the perseverance of a soldier who refused to let bureaucracy erase his sacrifice,” said Attorney Dylan Thayer, who represented the veteran. “Our client gave everything for his country, and after years of struggle, the system has finally acknowledged that he was entitled to a medical retirement from the very beginning. It is an honor to stand by him in securing this result.”

The Board’s decision not only restores the veteran’s dignity but also grants him critical benefits, including retirement pay, health care, and backdated entitlements. It sends a broader message that service members should not have to fight for years to obtain the care and recognition that the law already promises them.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents U.S. service members, veterans, and federal employees in military and federal employment law matters, including courts-martial defense, PEB/MEB representation, ABCMR appeals, and security clearance defense. The firm is dedicated to correcting injustices and protecting the rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Overturns Airman’s Conviction; Restores Honor and Career

Posted on September 15, 2025 by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC announced today a significant victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which unanimously reversed the wrongful conviction of an Airman wrongfully convicted of cocaine use. The unanimous decision found that prosecutors had wrongfully failed to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.

This decision likely secures more than three years of back pay and allowances for the Airman and, most importantly, removes his criminal conviction, ensuring he will be honorably discharged.

From Injustice to Vindication

The young Airman faced a devastating court-martial conviction in 2021 at Little Rock Air Force Base after the government withheld and destroyed critical evidence that could have exonerated him. While one of his co-accused was acquitted and another not even charged, the Airman was left with a court martial conviction, “bad paper” discharge, denied appellate review, and forced to rebuild his life working at a Home Depot.

After his initial Article 69 petition was denied, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC took the case pro bono. When the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan, argued the appeal before the CAAF in Spring of 2025.

This morning, the CAAF issued its unanimous decision, ruling that the lower court erred in dismissing withheld exculpatory evidence, a clear violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Court found the government’s destruction of investigative files and failure to disclose evidence fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial.

A Voice for All Service Members

“This case reaffirms that every service member, no matter their rank, deserves a fair trial,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “Our client stood alone for years, but today the Court has restored his honor and ensured that justice prevails.”

Case Impact

The Court set aside both the findings and the sentence, underscoring that suppressed evidence of potential innocent ingestion and investigative misconduct should have been disclosed.

This ruling strengthens due-process protections across the armed forces and sends a clear message that the government must honor its constitutional discovery obligations.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm representing military service members, federal employees, and veterans. With a focus on courts-martial defense, medical retirement boards, and appeals before military and federal courts, the firm is committed to safeguarding the rights, careers, and honor of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No attorney-client relationship is created by this announcement.

Army Chaplain Files New ABCMR Petition Following Court Victory

Posted on September 11, 2025 by Becky Haugen

A Step Forward in Restoring Honor and Correcting Injustice

An Army Chaplain has filed a new application with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seeking the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from her official record. This filing follows her decisive federal court victory earlier this summer, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Army’s prior refusal to grant relief was “arbitrary and capricious” and remanded her case to the Board

A Career of Service, a Battle for Justice

The Chaplain’s story is one of resilience, faith, and dedication to the soldiers she served. After joining active duty in 2016, she rose to become a Battalion Chaplain in the 101st Airborne Division. Her record included consistent high marks for performance and leadership, along with deep personal commitments to the spiritual and moral well-being of her troops

In 2022, following an administrative dispute with a subordinate soldier, she received a GOMOR. While the Army initially attempted to end her career, a Board of Inquiry later determined she should be retained, recognizing that her conduct did not rise to the level of separation. Even so, the reprimand remained in her permanent record, a stain that hindered her advancement despite subsequent “highly qualified” evaluations and strong endorsements from peers and leaders

In February 2024, the ABCMR itself unanimously recommended removing the reprimand, citing her remorse, strong performance, and the unfair severity of the GOMOR. But in April 2024, that recommendation was overturned by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. The Chaplain challenged the decision in federal court, and on July 14, 2025, the District Court sided with her, ordering the case returned to the Board for proper reconsideration

Moving the Ball Forward

Now, with her latest ABCMR filing, the Chaplain is seeking to finish what began three years ago: the full restoration of her record and her honor.

“This case is about more than one reprimand,” said her attorney, Dylan Thayer, of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “It is about ensuring that a decorated chaplain’s career is not defined by an isolated incident, especially after she has demonstrated unwavering integrity, remorse, and continued excellence in service.”

For the Chaplain, the filing is not simply about personal vindication. It is about correcting the record so that her service is remembered for what it truly is faithful, compassionate, and dedicated to the soldiers she was called to serve.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for its representation of service members, veterans, and federal employees. The firm has extensive experience in military law, corrections of military records, courts-martial defense, and federal employment litigation.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.