December 2025

A Season of Gratitude for Those Who Serve and Those Still Waiting

Posted on December 24, 2025December 23, 2025 by Becky Haugen

As families gather during the holiday season, it is a time to pause and express gratitude—for service, for sacrifice, and for the quiet resilience of those who continue to serve even when recognition comes slowly, if at all.

Across the military and federal workforce, many service members and employees spend this time of year navigating unresolved challenges: pending medical evaluations, delayed retirement decisions, discharge reviews still under consideration, or careers placed on hold by administrative processes that move far more slowly than life itself. These are not abstract issues. They shape families’ futures, financial stability, and a sense of dignity earned through years of service.

This season invites reflection not only on what has been given, but on what is still owed—fair process, timely decisions, and lawful treatment. Gratitude does not require silence about the systems that affect those who serve. Instead, it can take the form of patient advocacy, careful attention to detail, and a commitment to ensuring that every case is reviewed on its merits.

For many, the holidays arrive without resolution. Yet service continues—often quietly, often unseen. Families adapt. Careers wait. And hope persists that the coming year will bring clarity, fairness, and accountability.

At this time of year, we extend our sincere thanks to service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families. Your service matters. Your patience is not unnoticed. And your right to fair treatment under the law remains essential—during the holidays and beyond.

Former Service Members Seeking Discharge Upgrades Face Continued Challenges

Posted on December 23, 2025December 23, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Service members separated from the military without an honorable discharge have limited access to veterans’ benefits and may have trouble obtaining employment. Veterans who believe their discharge involved an error or injustice can apply to have review boards consider their case for a potential upgrade or clemency. Current and former Service members can also apply to have errors in their military records corrected.

Since 2011, the Department of Defense has issued six guidance memoranda directing those review boards on how to conduct their review of these requests:

The “Stanley Memo” (2011), on occasion of repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, instructs boards to change discharge statuses, narrative reasons, and other derogatory information where veteran (1) discharged under DADT or prior policies and (2) no aggravating circumstances exist

The “Hagel Memo” (2014) requiring the boards to take a trauma-informed “liberal consideration” approach when evaluating discharge upgrade requests from veterans with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and related conditions.

The “Carson Memo” (2016) allows veterans with certain mental health conditions to apply to boards for correction no matter how long ago they were discharged, while also allowing previously-denied applicants to apply again with the benefit of the Hagel Memo.

The “Kurta Memo” (2017) greatly expanded on the Hagel Memo “liberal consideration” standard and clarifies how PTSD, traumatic brain injury (TBI), military sexual trauma (MST) and other mental health conditions should be reviewed.

The “Wilkie Memo” (2018) emphasized the importance of granting discharge upgrades to ensure fundamental fairness and required the boards to consider clemency and rehabilitation in their decision-making process

The “Vazirani Memo” (2024) provided clarifying guidance regarding the application of “liberal consideration” in cases requesting correction in order to establish eligibility for medical retirement or medical separation benefits.

Despite more than a decade of these policy reforms, veterans still face inconsistent application of the standards referenced in these memoranda. For example, a 2025 GAO report found that discharge review boards and correction boards fail to apply “liberal consideration” consistently. Many veterans continue to experience delays, procedural errors, and unclear communication that can hinder access to benefits.

How Our Firm Can Help

We represent Service members, veterans, USPHS and NOAA officers, and federal employees nationwide in:

Discharge upgrades
BCMR/BCNR records corrections
Federal adverse actions and MSPB appeals
Security clearance and suitability issues
Medical licensure and privileging disputes

If you believe your discharge or personnel records do not reflect the full story of your service, our attorneys can help you navigate the process and present the strongest possible case.

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. Viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Department of Defense Directory of Memorandums

Memorandum – Vazirani

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights

Posted on December 4, 2025December 4, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights:

Overview:

On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay, thus allowing the Department of State to continue to enforce a policy requiring all new U.S. passports to list the sex assigned at birth rather than a gender‐identity marker or an “X” designation.

The policy reversed 33 years of previous practice which allowed applicants to select gender markers consistent with their identity.

A lower federal court had preliminarily enjoined the new policy, finding potential irreparable harm to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals (a position supported by the three Justices who dissented from the stay decision); the Supreme Court’s stay suspends that injunction while the underlying litigation continues.

In short: the Court’s action does not dispose of the merits, but it immediately permits the government’s policy to be enforced while appeals proceed—raising significant legal and practical implications for identity recognition and travel. Notably, the Court’s opinion also indicated its preliminary view that the Government is likely to succeed in the case.

Effect on Military Service Members and Federal Employees

From a legal vantage point, this opinion is about much more than a technical change in the content of travel documents, it constitutes a meaningful shift in how identity, service, and federal recognition intersect for service members and federal employees who are transgender or nonbinary.

At its core, the policy change presents three principal categories of legal concern: (1) mobility and assignment risk; (2) documentary alignment and clearance/fitness burdens; and (3) the doctrinal posture of transgender rights under equal protection and administrative law.

Mobility and Assignment Risk

For a service member or federal employee, passports are not mere travel credentials, they can be mission-essential equipment. When a member’s official identity document reflects a gender marker inconsistent with their lived identity, the risk is operational: at foreign borders, in allied nation environments, on joint exercises, and during global deployments. A passport listing only the sex assigned at birth may immediately out a transgender or nonbinary individual, raising questions of security, host-nation reception, and force protection. The Court’s stay thus has the practical effect of making some assignments riskier for those individuals, even if their other credentials (military ID, DEERS, CAC, etc.) align with their gender identity.

Documentary Alignment and Federal Service Burden

The military and federal employment systems rely on coherence and consistency among personnel records, security clearances, travel documents, medical records, and identity verification systems. When a passport marker diverges from other records, it introduces friction: clearance adjudicators may wonder whether mismatched documents signal concealment or instability. Commanders may hesitate to send qualified individuals into roles where identity mismatches could degrade trust. Transgender and nonbinary persons, therefore, face a unique documentary burden: while their performance may meet standards, their identity alignment becomes a persistent administrative stressor.

Additionally, the policy sends a signal: even if the individual has changed their name, corrected records, and deployed without incident, the federal government now says that their passport will reflect their birth-sex, not their gender identity. That structural disjunction, between recognition in uniform and misrecognition in travel documents, raises novel career and administrative risks.

Doctrinal Posture: Equal Protection & Administrative Law

Legally, Trump v. Orr is important for how it frames transgender/nonbinary rights. In the district-court litigation underlying the stay (Orr v. Trump), the plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection component, the Due Process right to travel, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious agency action. The government argued that listing sex at birth is a factual administrative classification and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay suggests that at least on the emergency docket it viewed the government’s interest in uniformity of government issuance and foreign-affairs deference as meriting temporary relief.

For military and federal employees, the doctrinal import is this: if the Court treats this kind of identity regulation as subject only to rational-basis review, then future policies impacting transgender and nonbinary individuals, whether in fitness standards, deployment eligibility, health care access, or records changes, may face a less rigorous judicial review threshold. The bureaucratic authority to define which identities count may grow larger.

Specific Implications for Service Members and Federal Employees

Service members with deployments, TDYs, or exchange billets abroad may now face additional barriers if their passport mis-identifies them. Commands may delay or cancel assignments citing “logistical or diplomatic risk.”
Noncommissioned and commissioned personnel seeking security clearances could face increased scrutiny if their records show inconsistencies between their identity and travel documentation—creating an unspoken impediment to advancement.
Veterans transitioning to federal civilian employment or contractor roles may see their mobility and international travel constrained, and their identity-related documentation mismatches may reduce eligibility for roles that require international travel or clearance.
The ruling signals to federal agencies that policies prerequisite to identity recognition (e.g., gender marker changes, name changes, affirming health care) may be vulnerable to future roll-backs or reinterpretations, complicating long-term planning for transgender and nonbinary federal employees.

Conclusion

While the stay in Trump v. Orr is temporary and the litigation remains ongoing, the immediate outcome is clear: the federal government will now issue passports that ignore gender identity in favor of sex assigned at birth. For transgender and nonbinary individuals in uniform or federal service, this decision shifts mobility from a right to a potential vulnerability, imposes administrative burdens, and signals that identity recognition by the state can be unilaterally narrowed. From a policy-defense standpoint, any advocacy for trans and nonbinary service members must now treat passports and travel documents as frontline rights, not peripheral concerns.

Key Legal Resources & References

Supreme Court Trump Passport Gender Ruling Washington Post
Orr v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass.). Case Law
Trump v. Orr, Application 25A319, Supreme Court. Supreme Court
Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Whitehouse.gov
ACLU Press Release, “Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy.” American Civil Liberties Union
Lambda Legal, “Identity Document Guidance for Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender-Nonconforming + Intersex People.” Lambda Legal

Army Physician Testimonial: How David P. Sheldon, PLLC Protected My Career and Medical License

Posted on December 4, 2025December 4, 2025 by Becky Haugen

From Contentious Medical Board to a Clean Professional Slate

Issue: Contentious military medical board, MEB/PEB, and protection of medical license

I first contacted David Sheldon’s PLLC when it was becoming clear that my medical board was turning contentious. As a physician, the military was actively working to re-write the record to inappropriately retain me.

During the medical board process David fought a libelous NARSUM and objectively false commander’s statement among other challenges. Colleagues were concerned that I would be retained because of the Army’s history of retaining physicians “no matter what,” and I shared these concerns based on my own observations. David made the wise decision to bring in outside consultants to review the records, come to independent conclusions and testify at the formal medical board hearing.

With David’s arguments and expert witnesses (combatting my command’s best efforts to retain me), my case was found “unfit” and I am currently in the process of being honorably separated from service with a clean professional slate. He worked hard to simultaneously separate me and protect my medical license (as much as possible) and I faced no adverse professional action on separation, which is a remarkable outcome.

I could not recommend David’s counsel highly enough. I am certain that without his representation that I would have been retained and am not sure if I would have survived (without exaggeration) the remainder of my contract. If I needed to do it over again, I would choose representation by this firm. If you’re a physician seeking medical board representation, this is a group with real success & what impressed me was that at each step he had a plan for escalation if plan A, B and C failed.

-CPT Dr. (RET), USA MC

After Years of Legal Barriers, Client Secures Critical Breakthrough in Mandamus Fight to Restore Full Appellate Review

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Becky Haugen

In a case defined by extraordinary perseverance and complex jurisdictional obstacles, a former Guantanamo detainee represented by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has taken a major step forward in the effort to secure the full measure of appellate review guaranteed under federal law.

For more than a decade, the client has fought, often against procedural roadblocks not of their own making, to obtain a lawful review of their conviction by the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), as required under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). Despite years of delay, shifting interpretations of waiver rules, repeated abeyances, and a novel assertion of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the client has refused to abandon the pursuit of lawful, congressionally mandated review.

Today’s development underscores one truth: the client’s courage, resilience, and insistence on the rule of law have kept this case alive when institutions failed to act.

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

The client’s path to justice has been anything but direct. Though Congress established mandatory appellate review for military commission cases, the procedural history of this matter has been marked by:

Multiple delays and long periods of abeyance at the USCMCR
Government-created procedural roadblocks to obtain the record necessary for appeal, requiring mandamus intervention
A eventual dismissal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, despite the client’s transfer being conducted under a formal diplomatic agreement—not flight, evasion, or refusal to appear and client remaining subject to lawful extradition

At every stage, the client remained steadfast. At every barrier, the client continued to assert the right Congress guarantees.

“This case has always been about ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored,” said Annie Morgan. “Our client has shown extraordinary strength in the face of procedural obstacles that should never have occurred. Their resilience is the reason we are still moving forward. And we will continue to fight until the statutory right to review is finally fulfilled.”

Why This Case Matters

This fight extends well beyond a single appeal. At its core, it speaks to:

The long-standing brokenness of the military commissions systems;
The duty of tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction Congress mandates; and
The fundamental principle that no person, no matter the forum, should lose their rights due to administrative delay or misapplied doctrine.

Congress was explicit:
The USCMCR “shall review the record in each case submitted to it.” (10 U.S.C. § 950f(d)).

When agencies fail to act, the courts must intervene. That is the purpose of mandamus—and the reason this client’s fight continues.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier national practice focused on military law, federal employment, veteran’s rights, and the defense of service members across all uniformed services. Our team litigates before military commissions, federal courts, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the MSPB, and agencies across the United States. We are committed to protecting those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release provides general information regarding ongoing litigation and does not offer legal advice. No confidential client details have been disclosed. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.