Author: Becky Haugen

Veteran Military Attorney Karen Hecker Rejoins the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Karen Hecker joins Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

Veteran Military Attorney Karen Hecker Rejoins the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Washington, D.C. – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC proudly announces the return of Karen Hecker, a distinguished military and federal litigation attorney, who brings more than four decades of combined legal experience in military justice, appellate defense, and federal agency counsel service.

Before retiring from federal service in 2025, Ms. Hecker served for 21 years as an Associate General Counsel with the Department of Defense Office of General Counsel, where she managed complex, high-impact litigation on behalf of the Department and its senior leadership. Her work spanned international law, personnel and health policy, fiscal matters, and military justice under the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

Karen’s government career followed 24 years as an Air Force Judge Advocate (JAG), culminating in her retirement as a Colonel in 2017 after service on active duty and in the Reserves. Her military tenure included three years as a trial defense counsel, which also involved representing cadets as Military Cadet Counsel at the United States Air Force Academy, followed by eight years as an appellate defense counsel, representing service members before both the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces.

She later served as Deputy Staff Judge Advocate and Staff Judge Advocate at two operational bases, and ultimately as a judge on the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals, where she presided over military appellate cases. Before her retirement, Karen also served as agency counsel for the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records and during Officer Grade Determination reviews.

Returning to the firm where she previously practiced from 2001 to 2004, Karen joins as a Senior Litigation Attorney, bringing exceptional insight and experience to the firm’s representation of military and federal employees across all branches of service.

“Karen’s return to our firm is a tremendous asset for our clients,” said David P. Sheldon, founder and principal attorney. “Her depth of experience, leadership, and integrity exemplify our mission—to deliver justice and restore honor to those who serve.”

In her personal time, Karen enjoys boating on the Chesapeake Bay and volunteering with a local animal rescue organization.

Quick Update: Shutdown Puts Military, Retiree Pay at Risk and USPHS/NOAA Survivors Are Vulnerable

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Shutdown Puts Military, Retiree Pay at Risk — and USPHS/NOAA Survivors Are Still Vulnerable

Washington, DC – October 26, 2025
A recent warning from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent underscores the dire stakes of the ongoing U.S. federal government shutdown. Military personnel may begin missing paychecks as early as November 15 if funding remains unresolved. (United Press International)

While active-duty forces are immediately in the spotlight, this looming threat further highlights a critical but often-overlooked gap: the retirement and survivor payments for USPHS and NOAA officers and their families. Unlike active employees designated “excepted,” many retirees and survivor beneficiaries are not shielded by temporary funding fixes, legislative stopgaps or re-programmed appropriations.

Why This Matters — Now

  • The shutdown’s ripple effects on military pay demonstrate how quickly budget lapses translate into real financial risk.
  • USPHS/NOAA retirees and survivor beneficiaries, who depend on standing entitlements, remain at risk because they are not always included in emergency appropriations measures nor covered by the same protections afforded to active-duty pay.
  • The class action effort being advanced by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is timelier than ever, particularly given the expanded visibility of funding vulnerabilities across the uniformed services.

“When the nation’s protectors and public-health officers are suddenly unsure if their next check will arrive, it’s not only a financial disruption, it’s a breach of trust,” said David P. Sheldon, founding partner of the firm. “Our class-action is built to ensure that those who served do not become collateral damage in a political shutdown.”

What You Can Do

If you are a USPHS or NOAA retiree, a surviving spouse or family member, or know someone who is concerned about delayed or interrupted benefit payments, we encourage you to reach out:

📞 Call: 202-546-9575
💻 Contact us via: militarydefense.com/contact-us

Your involvement can help shape the class action and amplify efforts to secure protections that must cover retirees and survivors, not just currently serving officers.

Appeal Challenges Air Force ROTC Disenrollment Decision—Firm Argues Due Process and Fairness Violated

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has filed an appeal challenging the Air Force Reserve Officer Training Corps’ (AFROTC) decision to disenroll a cadet just weeks before his commissioning. The appeal, submitted to the Commander of the Air Force ROTC, calls for reinstatement and correction of the record, citing significant procedural flaws and violations of fairness and due-process principles.

According to the appeal, the former cadet, a first-generation American, had earned a Type II scholarship, served as a Scholastic Officer and head of the Cadet Leadership Council, and was selected to become a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) Pilot before his disenrollment in 2024.

The appeal contends that the disenrollment rested on a mischaracterization of events, including an arrest that was later expunged by court order and a minor physical-fitness-test irregularity that the cadet immediately self-reported and retested. The filing argues that Air Force regulations and constitutional standards require decisions to be based on final adjudications, not unproven allegations, and that the cadet’s expunged record cannot lawfully serve as grounds for career-ending action.

Citing Department of the Air Force Manual 36-2032 and AFROTC Instruction 36-2017, the appeal asserts that commanders are improperly instructed to act on “original events” rather than judicial outcomes, contradicting the presumption of innocence guaranteed by the Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The filing further notes that the cadet’s alleged “breach of contract” for failing to commission in the intended fiscal year was due to court delays outside his control, not misconduct.

Supporting letters from senior officers, describe the cadet as an honest, resilient leader who has demonstrated rehabilitation, faith, and renewed commitment to service.

“Every cadet deserves a fair, fact-based evaluation, not a lifetime penalty for a record the courts have cleared,” said David P. Sheldon, lead counsel on the appeal. “This case is about restoring integrity to the ROTC process and ensuring that deserving young Americans are not barred from serving their country because of bureaucratic error.”

The appeal requests full reinstatement into the AFROTC program or, alternatively, a correction of the official DD Form 785 to allow the cadet future eligibility for Officer Training School.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members, cadets, and federal employees in military and administrative law matters worldwide. The firm has built a national reputation for defending the rights and careers of those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any case depends on its specific facts and applicable law. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals facing ROTC disenrollment or similar administrative action should consult qualified counsel for legal guidance regarding their particular circumstances.

 

Ninth Circuit Judges Question Legality of DoD’s Transgender Service Ban

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Rainbow pride flag

Two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit signaled deep concern this week over the Department of Defense’s sweeping transgender service ban—questioning both its constitutional footing and its breadth. The appeal, argued Monday, stems from the Trump administration’s Executive Order 14183 and subsequent DoD policy excluding individuals with a history or diagnosis of gender dysphoria, or even “symptoms consistent with” it, from military service.

During oral argument, the panel pressed government counsel to explain why the policy appears to bar virtually all transgender persons from serving, despite years of successful open service under previous administrations. One judge noted that the ban “seems to cover anyone who has ever been identified as transgender, whether or not they are currently receiving treatment or have demonstrated any impairment.”

As reported by Law360, Courthouse News Service, and Bloomberg Law, the judges questioned whether DoD could produce any empirical evidence that transgender service negatively impacts readiness, cohesion, or medical deployability. (Law360, Oct 20, 2025) | (Courthouse News Service, Oct 20, 2025) | (Advocate.com, Oct 21, 2025)

A written decision has not yet been released. The Ninth Circuit typically posts opinions to its public docket without advance notice. Observers expect a ruling “in the coming months.”

Opinion: What This Means for Military and Federal Employees

The tone of Monday’s hearing suggests the court may reject the government’s “blanket” approach. The judges’ skepticism indicates that DoD may soon be directed to re-evaluate or narrow the ban, grounding any restrictions in demonstrable evidence rather than broad classifications.

For active-duty and reserve members facing harassment or adverse action linked to gender identity, this hearing offers reason for cautious optimism. Even as litigation continues, service members and DoD civilians retain independent administrative remedies—including Equal Opportunity complaints, Inspector General filings, and EEO or MSPB channels for federal workers.

Those who have experienced disciplinary action, medical disqualification, or separation under the new policy should preserve documentation and seek prompt legal counsel. These records will be critical if the Ninth Circuit affirms the injunction or orders a partial stay.

Resources and Citations

David P. Sheldon, PLLC Pursuing Class Action to Protect NOAA and U.S. Public Health Service Retirees and Families

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Senior Attorneys Annie Morgan and Dylan Thayer of The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, intend to prepare a class action lawsuit on behalf of retirees and surviving family members of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who may face interruptions in their retirement or survivor benefit payments during a federal government shutdown.

If you or a loved one is a retired officer or survivor who has experienced or is at risk of delayed or withheld payments, we would like to hear from you. Your participation may help hold the government accountable and ensure permanent protection for those who served their nation honorably.

About the Case

Given funding lapses, USPHS and NOAA retirees and survivors will likely be exclude from payment while other federal and uniformed service members will continue to receive compensation. Although current legislative proposals—such as Sen. Ron Johnson’s “Shutdown Fairness Act” (S.3012)—would extend pay to certain active-duty and excepted employees, they, again, fail to protect retired officers and survivor beneficiaries.

This disparity leaves thousands of former officers and their families vulnerable to missed payments, despite their years of service and contributions to public health, environmental protection, and national readiness. The class action seeks a judicial remedy to establish that these payments are vested entitlements, not discretionary appropriations subject to political impasse.

“Our firm believes that no retiree or widow should ever wonder whether their next paycheck will arrive,” said David P. Sheldon, principal attorney. “These officers dedicated their lives to service—often in hardship tours and public emergencies. Their benefits should be guaranteed, regardless of Washington gridlock.”

Why Work with The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

David P. Sheldon, PLLC has earned national recognition representing service members, retirees, and federal employees in complex military and federal law cases, including matters before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, federal district courts, and Boards for Correction of Military Records.

The firm’s attorneys have successfully advanced class and individual actions to restore benefits, correct pay injustices, and protect due process rights across every uniformed service—Army, Navy, Air Force, Coast Guard, NOAA, and USPHS.

With decades of combined experience and a results-driven record, the firm’s attorneys bring both strategic litigation experience and deep institutional knowledge of military and federal employment law.

Contact Us

If you are a USPHS or NOAA retiree, a surviving spouse, or know someone who has been impacted, we invite you to contact our firm to discuss your eligibility for participation in this class action.

Call: 202-546-9575
Contact: militarydefense.com/contact-us

Your involvement can help ensure that the government upholds its commitments to those who served and defended the public.

 Share This Announcement

Help spread the word to NOAA and USPHS retirees and families who may be affected by these funding gaps. Together, we can safeguard the rights of those who have safeguarded our nation.

Supreme Court Case Could Leave Injured Service Members Without Recourse: Hencely v. Fluor

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army servicemembers sitting on courthouse steps

A Fight for Accountability in the War Zone

When Specialist Winston Tyler Hencely was catastrophically injured by a 2016 suicide bombing at Bagram Airfield, he sought justice through a state-law negligence suit against the defense contractor Fluor. His claim was simple: the company failed to supervise a subcontractor whose employee allegedly built and detonated the bomb.

But federal courts dismissed his case, ruling that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s combatant-activities exception and related federal interests preempt any state-law negligence claims tied to wartime operations. Now, in Hencely v. Fluor (No. 24-924), the U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether those immunity doctrines reach private contractors.

The Legal Question

At stake is whether the FTCA’s combatant-activities exception—which by its text shields the United States from liability for “claims arising out of the combatant activities of the military … during time of war” (28 U.S.C. § 2680(j))—also blocks suits against private contractors.

Hencely’s lawyers argue that the statute does not extend that far. They contend his claim concerns ordinary negligence, not battlefield decision-making. Fluor and the U.S. government counter that any tort case stemming from a war-zone base would entangle courts in military judgments, requiring preemption of state law to protect national security.

Why It Matters to Service Members

Because the Feres doctrine already bars active-duty personnel from suing the United States for service-related injuries, the only possible avenue for redress is often a suit against private contractors. If the Supreme Court upholds broad preemption, injured troops and their families could be completely without remedy—unable to sue either the government or its contractors, even for clear negligence in supervision, maintenance, or site safety.

That outcome would create what veterans’ advocates call a “remedy-free zone”: a world where those who serve in combat are left without any civil accountability for harm caused by negligent government partners.

Balancing Accountability and Military Deference

The Court must navigate the line between ensuring accountability and respecting the independence of military operations. Critics warn that expanding immunity invites careless contracting and removes incentives for safety. Supporters argue that allowing juries to review wartime conduct could second-guess the military and disrupt federal prerogatives.

However the Court rules, its decision will define the reach of contractor immunity in modern warfare and determine whether service members can still seek justice in civilian courts when contractor negligence contributes to their injuries.

Key Legal References

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or sharing this post does not create an attorney–client relationship. Service members facing similar issues should consult qualified counsel familiar with military and federal tort law.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, correction-board petitions, security-clearance matters, and federal employment disputes. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

 

Pending Legal Action: USPHS and NOAA Retirees Left Without Pay During Government Shutdown

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Pending Legal Action: USPHS and NOAA Retirees Left Without Pay During Government Shutdown

Washington, D.C. — October 15, 2025

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is examining the legal basis for a class action lawsuit on behalf of retired officers and annuitants of the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) who may not receive their retirement pay during the ongoing federal government shutdown.

While most uniformed service retirees—including those from the Department of Defense (“DoD”) and the Coast Guard—will continue to receive their earned retirement benefits through the Military Retirement Fund (“MRF”), USPHS and NOAA retirees are excluded from that system. Their payments are instead drawn from agency-specific discretionary appropriations, which halt when Congress fails to pass a continuing resolution or budget.

This funding disparity leaves USPHS and NOAA retirees vulnerable to the political process, despite their equal standing as uniformed service members under federal law (10 U.S.C. § 101(a)(4)). The claims would potentially be subject to review in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims and would challenge this inequity and seek both immediate restoration of withheld pay. and a declaratory judgment establishing that these retirees’ benefits are mandatory entitlements protected from budgetary suspension.

“No retiree should lose pay simply because their service fell under a different department seal,” said David P. Sheldon, founding attorney. “These men and women served under the flag of the United States just like their DoD and Coast Guard counterparts—and the government’s inaction has real human consequences.”

Who Is Affected

  • Included: Retirees and annuitants of the USPHS and NOAA Commissioned Corps who did not receive their scheduled retirement or survivor payments during the shutdown period.
  • Not Included: Retirees of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, Space Force, and Coast Guard, whose payments are statutorily protected through the MRF.
  • Potential Expansion: Federal civilian retirees may be affected indirectly but are not part of this pending action.

Legal Recourse for Affected Retirees

Eligible retirees may pursue the following avenues of relief:

  1. Class Participation:
    Retirees who have experienced nonpayment of retirement benefits may seek inclusion in the pending class action once filed. The case will argue that USPHS and NOAA retirement pay statutes (42 U.S.C. § 212, § 213a; 33 U.S.C. § 853) are money-mandating under the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), giving the U.S. Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to order payment and interest.
  2. Administrative Inquiry:
    Retirees should retain all correspondence and payment statements from the Coast Guard Pay & Personnel Center (PPC), which processes payments for USPHS and NOAA retirees. Written confirmation of nonpayment or delayed disbursement strengthens future claims.
  3. Individual Filing (Optional):
    Some retirees may choose to file an individual claim or mandamus petition if they experience unique financial hardship or are excluded from the class definition. Such cases may also assert violations of the Anti-Deficiency Act and Equal Protection principles under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
  4. Legislative Advocacy:
    In parallel, affected retirees may contact congressional representatives to urge the adoption of a statutory parity amendment—similar to the FY 2021 NDAA inclusion of the Coast Guard in the MRF—that would permanently protect retirement pay for USPHS and NOAA retirees.

Legal Background

The Anti-Deficiency Act (31 U.S.C. § 1341) prohibits the government from obligating funds not yet appropriated. However, mandatory entitlements such as Social Security and MRF-based military pensions continue during shutdowns because Congress has permanently appropriated those funds.
USPHS and NOAA retirees fall into a legal gap: their authorizing statutes require that pay “shall be paid,” but Congress never created a corresponding permanent appropriation. As a result, the agencies’ payment authority vanishes when appropriations lapse—despite statutory entitlement.

The forthcoming lawsuit will argue that “shall be paid” imposes a nondiscretionary duty, making retirement pay an obligation of the United States independent of annual funding. The government’s failure to pay, therefore, constitutes an unlawful withholding of compensation earned through federal service.

Statement from Counsel

“Congress has recognized eight uniformed services, not five branches and three exceptions,” said Annie Morgan, senior military defense counsel. “Parity must mean protection. If one uniformed retiree is paid during a shutdown, all should be.”

How to Get Involved

Retirees or survivors of the USPHS or NOAA Commissioned Corps who have missed or delayed payments due to the shutdown are encouraged to contact The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC at militarydefense.com for updates on the case and guidance on preserving their claims.

Disclaimer

This post is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice, nor does it create an attorney-client relationship. The lawsuit described herein has not yet been filed. Individuals should seek personalized legal guidance regarding their eligibility and options.

 

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal- Defense Holds Ground

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal — Defense Holds Ground

Just weeks after the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) issued a unanimous ruling overturning the wrongful conviction of Senior Airman whose life was derailed by withheld evidence, the government is attempting to roll back the decision.

On September 15, 2025, the CAAF found that prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding exculpatory evidence and destroying investigative files, ultimately denying SrA Bryce Roan a fair trial. That ruling restored his rank, pay, and dignity after years of injustice.

Now, the Air Force Government Trial and Appellate Division has filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Court overlooked evidence and that the exoneration was premature.

The Government’s Position

In its October 8 reply, the government contends that SrA Roan “failed to show” any admissible proof that dimethylhexylamine (DMHA), the ingredient found in the pre-workout powder central to the case, could cause a false positive for cocaine. The brief dismisses the cumulative evidence recognized by the Court, claiming the “missing link” in Roan’s defense is scientific proof and that no witness could testify that DMHA could trigger such a false reading.

The government further asserts that because Roan’s roommate, SSgt N.W., did not use the DMHA defense after being granted a continuance in his own trial, the theory lacks credibility, arguing that if the defense were viable, it would have been used then.

The Defense Fires Back

In a powerful response filed October 6, the defense team led by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan, rejected the government’s attempt to relitigate settled law.  She argued that the request for reconsideration was nothing more than “a refusal to accept accountability,” emphasizing that Supreme Court precedent requires courts to assess all suppressed evidence cumulatively, not isolate it piecemeal.

“Reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple,” the defense brief stated. “It is an audacious attempt to recast accountability as error.”

The defense brief reaffirms that the withheld evidence, including destroyed files, undisclosed interviews, and internal Air Force communications that stripped Roan of the ability to raise an innocent ingestion defense. The filing underscores that it was government misconduct, not defense deficiency, that created the evidentiary gap the government claims was overlooked.

“Having failed to disclose, failed to preserve, and failed to confront its obligations,” wrote, “the Government now faults this Court for holding it accountable.”

What’s Next

With both sides’ briefs now before the CAAF, the nation’s highest military court will determine whether to grant reconsideration or stand by its unanimous ruling. For SrA Roan, the case is about more than legal precedent, it’s about reclaiming a life and career nearly lost to bureaucratic indifference and prosecutorial overreach.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a leading firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans before military and federal courts. The firm is nationally recognized for its work defending those whose rights and careers have been jeopardized by unjust actions within the military justice system.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

When the System Reboots But Justice Doesn’t

Posted on by Becky Haugen

MSPB

The Merit Systems Protection Board is back—at least on paper.

Last week, the Senate confirmed James Woodruff, President Trump’s nominee, to the federal board that hears grievances from government employees. His appointment restores a quorum to an agency that has sat largely paralyzed for months after the administration dismissed its last Democratic-appointed member.

To the casual observer, this looks like progress: the board can now issue decisions again. But as Politico’s Hassan Ali Kanu reported, the change could actually make it harder for federal employees  and by extension, uniformed service members in comparable administrative processes to get meaningful relief.

For nearly a year, federal workers who were fired or disciplined successfully argued in court that any complaint filed with the MSPB would be “futile.” Judges agreed, allowing employees to bypass a broken system and seek justice directly in federal court. Now, with a quorum technically restored, that legal opening is closing—even though the board remains buried under a fast-growing backlog of tens of thousands of appeals.

The symbolism is powerful: the White House can claim the machinery of due process has been repaired. But substance tells another story. A board stacked with political appointees and crippled by delay is not an engine of fairness, it’s a holding pen for accountability.

Federal workers, and the service members who rely on parallel review systems such as the Boards for Correction of Military Records, deserve a process that is independent, timely, and transparent. Restoring seats without restoring trust merely replaces paralysis with pretense.

Until Congress imposes statutory deadlines for decisions, guarantees the right to court review when agencies stall, and ensures balanced representation on these boards, justice for the federal workforce will remain bureaucratized, not delivered.