VA to Terminate Collective Bargaining Agreements

Veteran Affairs Cancels Contracts for Collective Bargaining

 

A federal appeals court on August 1, 2025 allowed 21 agencies—including Justice, State, Defense, Treasury, and Health & Human Services to end collective bargaining agreements. They ruled delaying the executive order would have hurt operations, and they saw no explicit anti-union intent. Now, VA has just taken this even further: on August 6, it formally terminated collective bargaining agreements for most VA bargaining-unit employees—except police, firefighters, and other security staff—as permitted under the same executive order. The VA argued this will let staff spend more time serving veterans and help managers promote strong performers and address poor performance—using funds and time formerly devoted to union activities instead

What the Court and VA Action Mean

  • Federal agencies now have the legal green light to cancel union contracts and set working conditions without union negotiation.
  • VA’s move means most union protections are gone, putting federal workers in more vulnerable positions.
  • This comes amid broader RIFs and staffing changes—many employees may face reassignments or termination with fewer channels to challenge decisions.

Why This Matters to You

If you’re a federal or VA employee:

  • You may no longer have union protections for grievance processes, job security, or discipline.
  • These changes happen at a time when many agencies are already cutting jobs or restructuring under secretive RIF processes.
  • It’s now even more critical to know your rights, keep detailed records, and seek legal help when your work status changes—especially for those affected by RIFs or disciplinary actions.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to providing exceptional legal representation to military service members and federal employees facing legal challenges. Specializing in military justice, veterans’ rights, and federal employment law, we are committed to advocating for the rights and well-being of our clients. For more information, please visit our website at www.militarydefense.com.

Event Reminder

 

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes and does not form an attorney-client relationship. Please consult an attorney for personalized legal advice.

 

Sources Cited

  • Appeals Court lifts injunction on ending federal bargaining rights Reuters
  • VA terminates collective bargaining contracts for most bargaining-unit employees VA Press

Federal Employment Law Virtual Town Hall on Monday, August 19 at 2:00 PM ET

Federal Employment Town Hall Hosted by MLPN August 19, 2025

Attorney David P. Sheldon and Annie Morgan to Join Expert Panel for Federal Employment Law Zoom Town Hall on August 19, 2025 @ 1 PM CT/2 PM ET for Virtual Town Hall

Question and Answer Panel for MLPN

David P. Sheldon, founding attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, and Annie Morgan, Senior Military Attorney at the firm, will speak on a national expert panel during a Federal Employment Law Virtual Town Hall on Monday, August 19 at 2:00 PM EST. The event, hosted by the Military Law Practitioners Network (MLPN).

The panel will address how ongoing legal developments, including agency-driven contract terminations and the erosion of union protections, are impacting job security, due process rights, and available legal remedies for federal workers.

Panelist Profiles

David P. Sheldon
As the founder of a nationally recognized federal and military law firm based in Washington, D.C., Mr. Sheldon has decades of experience representing service members and federal employees in complex legal forums, including MSPB, federal courts, and Boards for Correction of Military Records. He is a trusted advocate in RIF appeals, wrongful discharge, and employment record correction.

Annie Morgan
A Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, Annie Morgan brings extensive litigation experience on behalf of service members and federal workers. Her work includes advocating before military boards and defending clients facing termination, discharge review, and misconduct allegations.

Published Resources & Articles By Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

  • Fighting for Your Rights as a Federal Employee: Challenging Unjust Terminations – Outlines procedural protections under Title 5, VEOA, and the MSPB, and action steps for RIF victims
  • Displaced Federal Workers: Preparing grievances and appeals, challenging improper RIFs – Best practices and timelines for appeals and legal avenues
  • Federal Employees Facing Wrongful Termination and Reinstatement – Advises on clearing personnel records, appeals, and preserving future benefits

Event Details: Federal Employment Law Q&A:  A Town Hall Meeting with David P. Sheldon, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, Washington DC

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Established in Washington, D.C., this national firm specializes in military and federal employment law, advising service members, veterans, and federal employees on wrongful termination, RIF challenges, disability appeals, and record corrections. The firm’s experience spans MSPB, BCMR, federal courts, and administrative appeals  .

Contact & More Info:
Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546‑9575 • www.militarydefense.com

Disclaimer

This town hall is for informational and illustrative purposes only and does not establish an attorney-client relationship.  Attendees with individual legal needs are encouraged to consult a qualified attorney.

 

 

 

 

 

Federal Employee Protections Weaken as Federal Workers Lose Bargaining Rights

Courts Allow for Cancelling Collective Bargaining

A recent court decision has made it harder for federal employees to protect their jobs and working conditions.

On August 1, 2025, a federal appeals court said that 21 federal agencies can cancel union contracts and take away employee bargaining rights. These rights helped workers speak up about unfair treatment, file complaints, and work with their agencies to solve problems. Now, those protections are at risk—especially for employees working in national security–related jobs like Defense, State, Treasury, and HHS.

This ruling comes at a time when many federal employees are already facing massive layoffs (called RIFs) and sudden changes in leadership. Some agencies have removed top officials, while others are quietly planning job cuts. This has made federal jobs more uncertain than ever.

What Did the Court Say?

The court allowed agencies to cancel collective bargaining agreements, which are like contracts between workers and their employers. These agreements often include:

  • Protections against unfair firings
  • Ways to challenge poor treatment
  • Rules about promotions and job assignments

Now, agencies can remove these protections without negotiating with unions.

Why It Matters

This ruling has real consequences:

  • You might not be able to challenge unfair treatment as easily.
  • Agencies can change your job, move you, or even fire you—without union help.
  • If you’ve been affected by a RIF, your chances to fight back could be more limited.

Even if you’re a good worker, your agency may cut your position or change your role without much notice. And with union protections weakened, you may have fewer tools to protect your rights.

What’s Being Done?

The Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC in Washington, D.C., will speak at a national Federal Employment Law Town Hall on August 19. The event is hosted by the Military Law Practitioners Network (MLPN) and will offer legal insight for federal workers like you. David P Sheldon and Annie Morgan will be panelists at the Virtual Town Hall.

David P. Sheldon
As the founder of a nationally recognized federal and military law firm based in Washington, D.C., Mr. Sheldon has decades of experience representing service members and federal employees in complex legal forums, including MSPB, federal courts, and Boards for Correction of Military Records. He is a trusted advocate in RIF appeals, wrongful discharge, and employment record correction.

Annie Morgan
A Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, Annie Morgan brings extensive litigation experience on behalf of service members and federal workers. Her work includes advocating before military boards and defending clients facing termination, discharge review, and misconduct allegations.

The Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC has spent decades defending federal employees, veterans, and service members. The firm helps workers:

  • Challenge unfair RIFs
  • Appeal terminations
  • Clear their records
  • Fight for reinstatement and back pay

The upcoming panel will explain what your rights are, what the courts are doing, and how you can still protect yourself—even as the law changes.

What You Can Do Now

  • Know your rights – Even with union limits, laws like Title 5 and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) still offer protections.
  • Keep good records – Save emails, memos, and anything related to your job, duties, or changes in your position.
  • Talk to a lawyer – Especially if you were affected by a RIF or believe you were unfairly targeted.

Join the Free Town Hall Event

Monday, August 19, 2025
2:00 PM EST
Zoom (Virtual Event) Link
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2604808511?pwd=R3lyWnFHUjc2eW5vR01RUXBUK2F0UT09&omn=81483855549

Meeting ID: 260 480 8511
Passcode: 1Rehvs

Hosted by the Military Law Practitioners Network (MLPN)
Submit your questions in advance!

 

About the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

The firm is based in Washington, D.C. T fights for service members and federal workers in all forums—MSPB, federal courts, military boards, and more. If your job is on the line, he and his team know how to defend it.

Disclaimer: This opinion is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice specific to your case, speak with an attorney.

Rights of Transgender Service Members Denied Early Retirement Benefits

Air Force Denies Transgender Service Members Early Retirement: Legal Implications and Rights

Rainbow pride flag

On August 4, 2025, the U.S. Air Force issued a decision to rescind approvals for early retirement benefits under Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) for transgender service members who had already been granted the opportunity to retire with full benefits. These service members, many of whom had served nearly 20 years, had planned their retirements based on the assurances provided by previous approvals. However, the Air Force’s recent decision to withdraw these approvals, along with the directive to either voluntarily separate or face involuntary discharge without retirement benefits, has left these individuals facing uncertain futures.

This decision comes amid a contentious political environment surrounding transgender rights in the military. Under the Biden administration, the military had taken steps to reverse the transgender ban implemented by the Trump administration, allowing transgender service members to serve openly. However, this decision by the Air Force to rescind the retirement benefits seems to represent a stark reversal, despite the Biden administration’s earlier efforts to support the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in the armed forces.

The legal questions surrounding this issue are significant. Service members who had relied on the government’s initial promise of early retirement with benefits could argue that this action constitutes a breach of contract. They may also invoke the legal principle of promissory estoppel, which protects individuals from harm when they have relied on a promise to their detriment. The rescission of these benefits, after individuals had already planned their retirements based on the government’s assurances, suggests a legal vulnerability for the government, as they may be required to honor the commitments made to these service members.

Furthermore, the denial of retirement benefits specifically to transgender service members raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The government has a responsibility not to discriminate based on gender identity unless it can show a compelling governmental interest. In this case, the rescission of benefits, particularly when other military personnel are allowed such benefits, may be seen as discriminatory. Additionally, the abrupt denial of earned retirement benefits could also be challenged as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against the arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law.

This situation is further complicated by the existence of executive orders and administrative policies. The Biden administration had previously issued an executive order reversing the transgender military ban in January 2021, ensuring that transgender individuals could serve openly. However, the decision by the Air Force to rescind these benefits suggests a disregard for both the current administration’s policies and the legal protections that were established to ensure equal treatment for transgender service members.

For those affected, there are several potential legal remedies. One option is to pursue administrative appeals within the Department of Defense, challenging the rescission of retirement benefits. Another option is seeking judicial review in federal court to challenge the decision on constitutional and administrative law grounds. In some instances, affected service members may even consider a class action lawsuit, particularly if the number of those affected is significant, as a way to address the systemic nature of the policy.

In conclusion, the rescission of early retirement benefits for transgender service members raises important legal questions. The actions of the U.S. Air Force seem to directly contradict the legal precedents and executive orders established in favor of transgender rights. As a result, affected service members have viable legal options to challenge this decision. They may seek redress through administrative appeals, judicial review, or class action litigation, depending on the specifics of their case.

References:

  • Reuters, “U.S. Air Force Denies Early Retirement to Group of Transgender Service Members” Link
  • Newsweek, “Air Force Denies Transgender Troops Early Retirement Pay” Link
  • The Hill, “Air Force Denies Transgender Troops Retirement” Link

Disclaimer:
This article does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance or concerns, it is recommended to consult an attorney specializing in military law or constitutional rights.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to providing exceptional legal representation to military service members and federal employees facing legal challenges. Specializing in military justice, veterans’ rights, and federal employment law, we are committed to advocating for the rights and well-being of our clients. For more information, please visit our website at www.militarydefense.com.

Missed Service Related Trauma Reporting Impacts Lost Benefits: How VA Failures and Supreme Court Limits Hurt Veterans with Unreported MST and PTSD

Unreported Trauma Now Risks a Lifetime of Lost Veterans’ Benefits

Uniformed Military Personnel Leaving the Building

The evolving legal landscape surrounding military discharges, veterans’ benefits, and trauma-related claims, especially those involving military sexual trauma (MST), has reached a critical inflection point. Recent judicial and administrative developments have made one fact painfully clear: service members must ensure that their trauma, mental health diagnoses, and service-connected injuries are fully and accurately documented before they separate from the military. If they don’t, they may lose access to benefits that could have otherwise been rightfully theirs.

This shift in legal and policy frameworks directly affects how we advocate for service members, especially those who experienced MST or other forms of trauma that often go unreported. It is no longer enough to argue the credibility of a veteran’s experience post-discharge. The courts and the VA have begun closing the door on those arguments, placing more weight than ever on what is already recorded in the service member’s file.

The Burden of Silence: Why Trauma Goes Unreported

Military culture has historically been slow to recognize the lasting impact of trauma. Whether due to fear of retaliation, stigma, or command pressure, many service members, particularly those who are survivors of MST, choose not to report incidents while in uniform. The Department of Defense’s own estimates show that over 70% of sexual assault incidents go unreported [DoD SAPR Annual Report, 2023]. This silence, while often a survival tactic, now has lasting legal and financial consequences.

Even when trauma is reported, the system is not built to preserve it properly. Records may be incomplete, improperly coded, or missing altogether. Those gaps are no longer just bureaucratic problems; they are now legal barriers that can render veterans ineligible for the care and compensation they need.

SCOTUS Shuts the Door in Bufkin v. McDonough (2025)

In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 22-883, that VA decisions can only be reversed by appellate courts if there is a “clear error” in the original decision. More importantly, the Court made it clear that post-discharge evidence, no matter how compelling, is unlikely to be sufficient to win a benefits claim unless it was already part of the service record.

This decision shifts the evidentiary burden squarely onto the veteran, not only to prove that a trauma occurred, but to prove that it was recorded during service.

For survivors of MST, PTSD, or moral injury, who may not have felt safe enough to report while serving, this is a legal earthquake. Bufkin doesn’t account for the realities of trauma. It only accounts for paperwork.

Read the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-883_3f14.pdf

The GAO Report Confirms a Broken System

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) echoed this concern in its July 2025 report, GAO-25-107354, which found that the Department of Defense and the VA are failing to uniformly apply trauma-sensitive standards—especially in cases involving PTSD and MST. The report identified:

  • Inconsistent application of the “liberal consideration” standard in discharge upgrade boards;
  • Lack of mental health experts involved in board decisions;
  • Documentation gaps in official records that prevent accurate evaluations;
  • Command influence and suppression of trauma reporting that lead to inaccurate characterizations of discharge.

The GAO’s findings support what many attorneys already know: service members are being separated without a full and fair accounting of their trauma, and those errors are nearly impossible to correct after the fact.

Read the GAO Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107354

VA’s Continuing Failure to Handle MST Claims

Despite decades of internal reforms and public promises, the VA still struggles to adjudicate MST-related claims. Recent reporting by Stars and Stripes confirms that MST survivors face:

  • Delays and denials due to lack of corroborating records;
  • Insufficient training for VA staff handling trauma-sensitive cases;
  • A presumption of fraud, rather than credibility, when records are incomplete;
  • Lack of continuity between DoD reporting and VA adjudication.

This dysfunction is especially dangerous in light of Bufkin. The VA now has both the legal right and systemic bias to deny a claim that lacks perfect paperwork—even if the trauma was real and medically verified after discharge.

VA Claim Failures Reported: https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-07-28/gao-finds-inconsistent-discharge-standards-18584037.html

DoD’s Reforms May Be Too Late for Many

Executive Order 14092, signed in 2023, removed command authority from sexual assault prosecutions and placed decisions in the hands of independent military prosecutors. This reform—while necessary—is prospective. It does nothing to correct the failures of the past or to provide redress to those whose records were silenced by fear, retaliation, or command inaction.

DoD Policy Update: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3479106/executive-order-changes-how-military-handles-sexual-assaults/

What This Means for Service Members

The current legal environment leaves little room for error:

  • If a trauma is not recorded before discharge, it may never be legally recognized.
  • If a disability is not medically linked to service in the record, VA benefits may be denied.
  • If an MST report is missing or suppressed, there may be no path to justice, even with therapy records or affidavits post-service.

Attorneys must now encourage clients, especially those nearing separation, to immediately seek documentation of all physical, psychological, and traumatic incidents. This includes:

  • Visiting military mental health providers;
  • Obtaining written evaluations;
  • Filing IG or EO complaints, even late;
  • Submitting memos for record;
  • Requesting command letters, even if informal;
  • Asking chaplains or counselors for written notes.

Conclusion

We are entering an era where legal advocacy for veterans requires proactive, preventive action. The courts have made it clear: if it’s not in the record, it may as well not have happened.

This is a devastating message for many of our clients, especially those who endured trauma in silence. But it’s also a call to action. As military and veteran attorneys, we must adjust our strategy, inform our clients, and ensure the record tells the truth, before the discharge paperwork is signed.

Citations and Resources

About Us

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 representing military and federal personnel in correction of records, promotion denials, discharge upgrades, and other matters of military justice and federal administrative law.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes vary based on specific facts and legal circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

 

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

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

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

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

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.