Author: Becky Haugen

Veteran USPHS Officer Challenges Unlawful Denial of Career-Defining Benefits in Federal Court

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), with over three decades of distinguished service across multiple branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that bureaucratic failures and unlawful actions within the Department of Health and Human Services unjustly derailed his career, denied him a well-earned promotion to the rank of Captain, and significantly reduced his retirement benefits.

The legal action, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks judicial review of the USPHS Board for Correction’s refusal to credit six months of volunteer hospice work toward the officer’s Training and Education (TED) credit, a critical factor in determining initial rank, career trajectory, and eligibility for timely promotion. Despite multiple requests dating back to 2005 and a detailed appeal filed in 2022, the Board rejected his application as “untimely” and unsupported, ignoring compelling new evidence and legal arguments. His reconsideration request was also summarily denied in less than 24 hours by a contractor who lacked legal authority to issue such a decision.

“This is a case of clear legal error compounded by procedural miscues,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C. “Our client was misinformed by USPHS officials at the time of his recommissioning. Because of that bad advice, he was brought in at too low a rank, which permanently altered his promotion timeline and ultimately cost him a Captain’s commission. To make matters worse, the agency then ignored its own precedent, denied reconsideration through improper channels, and turned a blind eye to its own regulations.”

The plaintiff, who served in the Navy, Army National Guard, and USPHS, had consistently received superior performance evaluations and was nominated for commendations, including for his role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. His lawsuit cites violations of federal administrative law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), and challenges the Board’s refusal to even consider the similarities between his case and a prior Board ruling (PHS BCMR Case No. 18-005) in which another officer was granted full TED credit under nearly identical circumstances.

“This isn’t just about one officer’s career,” Thayer emphasized. “It’s about ensuring that our federal service members are treated fairly, that their records reflect their actual contributions, and that agencies follow the law instead of arbitrarily denying benefits based on flawed or biased processes.”

If successful, the case could result in the officer’s record being corrected to reflect the higher TED credit, a retroactive promotion to Captain, and significant backpay and increased retirement benefits. The implications may also extend to other current and former USPHS officers who were misadvised or administratively mishandled.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, promotions, disability and retirement benefits, and wrongful termination.

 

Disclaimer

This press release is issued by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546-9575 |  www.militarydefense.com

VA Disability Calculator Errors and Supreme Court Ruling Put Veterans’ Ratings at Risk

Posted on by Becky Haugen

This year, veterans across the country were surprised to learn that the VA’s online disability calculator, something many rely on to estimate benefits has been giving incorrect results. A recent report by Stars and Stripes revealed that flaws in the system may have caused veterans to receive the wrong combined disability rating. That could mean thousands of dollars in lost compensation for those affected.

The VA acknowledged the issue but hasn’t announced a system-wide fix to correct the miscalculations. This is deeply troubling, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that makes it harder than ever to fix these mistakes after the fact.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough, 601 U.S. ___ (2025). The Court decided that VA decisions can only be overturned if they meet the extremely high bar of a “clear and unmistakable error,” also known as a CUE. That means even if the VA made a mistake in calculating your disability rating, you can’t just appeal the decision unless you can prove it was obviously and unquestionably wrong.

You can read the Supreme Court’s docket entry here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/23-713/

The recent problem with the calculator combined with this ruling puts the burden entirely on the veteran. You must now catch and fix rating errors early, before the VA finalizes its decision. Once your claim is denied or granted with the wrong rating, you may have little to no recourse.

Why is this so important? Your VA disability rating affects not only your monthly tax-free payments but also your access to healthcare, housing programs, education benefits, and your eligibility for military retirement benefits. For example, the difference between a 90% and a 100% rating can amount to more than $1,000 per month and over a lifetime, this can mean tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

Now more than ever, legal experts urge veterans, service members, and federal employees to take action to ensure their ratings are accurate. First, request a full copy of your VA claims file, also known as a C-file. This file includes all documents used to decide your case. Review your medical ratings, award letters, and the VA’s decision explanation. This is your first line of defense.

Next, don’t rely on the VA’s online tools. Use trusted independent resources like https://www.dav.org/disability-calculator to double-check how your disabilities were combined. VA math uses a formula that isn’t simple addition, and errors in the calculator have already affected many veterans.

If you find an error in your rating or award decision, you should file a correction immediately. Veterans can submit a Supplemental Claim using VA Form 20-0995, which is available online at: https://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-20-0995-ARE.pdf  The earlier you act, the more options you will have. Waiting too long can result in permanent loss of benefits.

Finally, consider seeking legal support. A VA-accredited attorney or representative can review your case, help you gather supporting evidence, and ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete before you submit it. Under the Supreme Court’s Bufkin decision, the window for correcting errors is now narrower than ever before.

As Attorney David P. Sheldon explains, “If you’re a veteran relying on a rating from the VA’s calculator, now is the time to double-check everything. Because under Bufkin, even honest mistakes might not be fixable after the fact.”

The takeaway is clear: every veteran must now approach their initial disability claim as if it’s their only chance to get it right. The legal system is no longer positioned to correct missteps made along the way, even when those missteps aren’t your fault.

For additional information on how the VA processes appeals and claim reviews, visit https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/. For independent help from a nonprofit, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program offers free legal assistance to qualifying veterans at https://vetsprobono.org.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, we are a nationally recognized law firm focused on protecting the rights of military service members, veterans, and federal employees. We help clients fight unjust discharges, benefit denials, security clearance revocations, and more.

Contact the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC  https://militarydefense.com

Disclaimer
This educational post does not constitute legal advice. Every claim and rating situation is unique. Veterans are encouraged to speak with a qualified attorney to review their individual cases.

Army Veteran Seeks Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, and Medical Retirement in High-Stakes Legal Remand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated Army sergeant wounded in combat and medically separated with only partial recognition of his injuries is seeking long-overdue justice through a remand application now before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The veteran, who served two combat tours during Operation Iraqi Freedom, has petitioned for the correction of his military records to include a full medical retirement, retroactive award of the Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge, and all associated benefits.

The filing follows a recent Order by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which, on May 6, 2025, remanded the sergeant’s case back to the ABCMR for reconsideration. The Court acted on a joint motion between the veteran and the Secretary of the Army, acknowledging serious questions about the Army’s prior denials of relief.

Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the veteran argues that the Army failed to recognize or adequately rate multiple combat-related injuries, despite clear evidence of wounds sustained during enemy engagements, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and exposure to toxic burn pits.

“This remand is not just an opportunity to revisit the record, it’s a second chance to deliver long-denied recognition and justice to a soldier who risked everything for his country,” said Thayer. “The failure to properly document and award combat-related injuries continues to be a systemic issue that disproportionately affects those who served in high-risk environments without the benefit of thorough or consistent record-keeping.”

The veteran’s petition details incidents including a stabbing by an Iraqi combatant, repeated blast exposures, and a severe knee injury, as well as psychological trauma documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs as service-connected. Despite these facts, the veteran received only a 10% disability rating upon separation and was denied the awards that would typically accompany such injuries under Army Regulation 600-8-22.

The filing also invokes the “liberal consideration” standard under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h), which requires that claims involving PTSD or TBI related to combat be reviewed with deference to the service member’s experience and credible evidence.

Thayer added, “If this veteran had remained with his original unit a few months longer, he likely would have received the Combat Action Badge when it was retroactively issued. The only thing that separated him from eligibility was paperwork, not merit or service.”

The ABCMR is now tasked with reconsidering the veteran’s application in light of the Court’s order, new medical evidence, and expert findings. A favorable ruling could result in back pay, a corrected discharge status, and permanent disability retirement, a rare but vital remedy for service members whose sacrifices have been overlooked.

 

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented service members, veterans, and federal employees across all branches of the armed forces in matters involving courts-martial, security clearance appeals, military record corrections, medical retirement, and whistleblower protections. With decades of experience and a reputation for aggressive and principled advocacy, the firm is committed to defending the constitutional and statutory rights of those who serve.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
(202) 546-9575
lhttps://militarydefense.com

 

DISCLAIMER:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC does not represent the individual named in the remand application unless otherwise stated. Statements made herein are based on publicly filed legal documents and do not reveal confidential client information.

 

Orders Under Fire: When Following Command Becomes a Legal Risk in Today’s Military

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Obedience Becomes a Crime: The Military Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Obedience in Uniform Has Limits

Military personnel are bound by duty, discipline, and the chain of command. But that duty does not extend to illegal actions. Under both U.S. military law and international standards, service members are legally required to refuse unlawful orders—a point often overlooked in public discourse and sometimes misunderstood within the ranks.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we’ve stood beside clients worldwide who’ve had the courage to disobey in defense of justice and the Constitution. This article explores the legal, ethical, and historical foundations of the duty to refuse unlawful orders—and what protections exist for those who do.

What Is an Unlawful Order?

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.

An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.

Examples of Unlawful Orders:

  • Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
  • Torturing or abusing detainees
  • Falsifying operational or legal records
  • Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions

Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.

Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).

According to Army Field Manual 27-10:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible.”

Historical and Legal Precedents

  1. Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

Established the global legal principle that “just following orders” is not a valid defense for war crimes.

  1. Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Held a commanding officer accountable for crimes committed by subordinates—introducing the doctrine of command responsibility. (Read the case)

  1. United States v. Calley (My Lai Massacre)

Calley’s conviction showed that carrying out manifestly illegal orders—even in combat—results in individual accountability. (U.S. Army analysis)

  1. Lt. Ehren Watada (2006)

Refused deployment to Iraq, arguing that the war was illegal. Although his case ended in a mistrial, it reignited public debate on conscience versus command.  Case overview

Ethics in Action: The Burden of Moral Courage

Military obedience does not require blind loyalty. Orders carry the presumption of legality, but that presumption is rebuttable—especially when the order is clearly illegal on its face. Recognizing an unlawful order is often difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations. Still, ethical training and operational awareness are designed to support service members in making these critical decisions.

Protections for Service Members Who Speak Up

Disobeying an unlawful order may save lives, protect the Constitution, and uphold international law—but it can also put a service member at risk of retaliation, adverse career action, or criminal charges.

Key Legal Protections:

  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act
    Protects service members who report violations of law or abuse of authority.
    10 U.S. Code § 1034
  • MEB/PEB Appeals and Administrative Relief
    If a service member is wrongfully discharged or medically separated in retaliation, legal remedies may be pursued through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Can Help

We represent service members in all branches of the armed forces—worldwide. From courts-martial and boards of inquiry to whistleblower defense and medical discharge litigation, we know how to challenge wrongful actions at every level of military command.

If you’ve been threatened, punished, or silenced for refusing an unlawful order—or for reporting one—you are not alone. And your rights deserve to be defended.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense firm representing active duty, reserve, and retired service members in courts-martial, MEB/PEB proceedings, security clearance matters, administrative separation, and federal court appeals. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to protecting those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com

Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

 

References & Citations

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is fact-specific. If you are facing a legal issue related to military justice or command authority, you should speak with a qualified and licensed military law attorney.

Memorial Day: A Legacy of Honor, A Nation’s Promise

Posted on by Becky Haugen

 

Flag with Soldiers boots
Image of Soldiers Boots in Memory of their Sacrifice.
Photo Taken by David at Schofield Barracks, 25th Infantry Division,”Tropical Lightening”, Memorial Day (2019)

Born from the ashes of the Civil War, Memorial Day began as a solemn tribute to the countless Union and Confederate soldiers who perished on American soil. First known as Decoration Day, families would gather to adorn the graves of the fallen with flowers, flags, and prayers, an act not of politics, but of remembrance. It was a sacred ritual of healing for a fractured nation.

Over a century later, the tradition endures. Memorial Day is no longer about North or South. It is about sacrifice, service, and the silent rows of headstones that stretch across Arlington, Normandy, and beyond. It is about every soldier who laid down their life in defense of a nation they believed in, even when that belief demanded the ultimate price.

As a law firm dedicated to defending the rights of those who wear the uniform, we know the fight does not end at the battlefield. We honor the fallen by standing with the living, ensuring service members, veterans, and their families receive the justice and dignity they have earned.

This weekend, may we all pause not only to remember, but to renew our collective promise: that these sacrifices will not be forgotten, and that our freedoms will never be taken for granted.

Let us honor their sacrifice by serving those who continue to wear the uniform.

Former Navy Member Appeals Federal Ruling in Disability Benefits Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Court Asked to Reconsider Standards Used to Deny Full Medical Retirement

A former Navy service member has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld the Department of the Navy’s disability benefits determination, arguing that the decision was contrary to statutory protections and unsupported by the administrative record. The appeal, filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the standards and methodology used by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) in assigning a 10% permanent disability rating—far below the threshold required for retirement benefits.

The appeal raises significant questions about how the military adjudicates disability claims involving mental health conditions, particularly Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) linked to combat-related service. The case centers on whether the PDBR misapplied regulatory guidance—specifically the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) § 4.129 and § 4.130—and whether it provided adequate justification for diverging from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ prior 30% disability rating.

According to court records, the appellant had served as a sensor operator involved in combat missions and was later diagnosed with PTSD. Despite this, the Navy separated the service member with a disability rating below the 30% threshold that would have guaranteed medical retirement and long-term benefits. A retroactive review by the PDBR provided temporary retirement benefits for a six-month window but ultimately affirmed the original 10% rating—an outcome the appellant contends is both legally flawed and medically unjust.

The appeal asserts that the PDBR failed to account for relevant medical evidence, improperly minimized symptoms of psychological trauma, and acted in conflict with governing Department of Defense policies that require minimum ratings for combat-related mental health conditions.

Attorneys from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represent the appellant, seek reversal of the lower court’s judgment and a remand for proper reconsideration under the Administrative Procedure Act.

ABOUT THE LAW FIRM

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for its expertise in military and federal litigation. The firm advocates for service members and federal employees in matters involving courts-martial, discharge upgrades, medical retirement, and administrative appeals.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the facts, law, and procedural posture of the case.

Medical Privacy Weaponized: The Pentagon Targets Transgender Troops

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In a move that has stunned civil rights advocates and service members alike, the Department of Defense has authorized the targeting of transgender troops using their own medical records. This isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a constitutional test. It marks a chilling moment where private health data is no longer a matter of care or protection, but a trigger for discharge, exclusion, and potential ruin.

The scope may appear narrow—focused only on service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria—but the implications are sweeping. If a subset of Americans in uniform can be expelled based on medical documentation tied to identity, what stops the next policy from targeting mental health diagnoses, reproductive history, or other protected medical categories?

This is more than a rollback of progress—it’s a blueprint for how bureaucracies can systemically isolate, stigmatize, and expel a population through paper trails. When records become tools of removal, no one is safe from being next.

At its core, this policy is a test:

  • A test of how far executive authority can go in overriding equality.
  • A test of whether health privacy exists at all in the armed forces.
  • A test of America’s promise to treat all who serve with dignity—regardless of gender, identity, or diagnosis.

The question is no longer “Who will be affected?”
It’s “Who’s watching—and who will be next?”

The Policy: Medical Records as a Tool of Separation

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in May 2025 that allowed the Trump administration’s transgender military ban to take effect pending litigation, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum through Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The memo directs the involuntary discharge of transgender service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria unless they voluntarily separate by June 6. Notably, the Pentagon is not relying on self-reporting—it is actively reviewing medical records to identify individuals, even if they have not publicly disclosed their identity.

This marks an unprecedented expansion of military surveillance into private health documentation as a means of enforcing exclusion.

Legal Violations: Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privacy

While military medical records operate under different rules than civilian care (HIPAA protections are limited in uniformed service), that does not mean there are no ethical or legal boundaries.

The new policy arguably violates:

  • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by targeting a protected class based solely on diagnosis tied to identity.
  • The Due Process Clause, by initiating discharge procedures without clear avenues for challenge or individualized assessment.
  • The principles of medical confidentiality, which are foundational even in the structured environment of military service.

Legal organizations including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU are mounting constitutional challenges, arguing that this discriminatory use of medical files weaponizes health data and violates civil liberties.

The Human Cost: Service, Sacrifice, and Systemic Exclusion

The real consequences extend far beyond legal theory.

For thousands of transgender troops—many of whom have served honorably through multiple administrations—this means career termination, loss of pensions and VA benefits, housing instability, and the erasure of hard-earned dignity.

This is not an issue of readiness, misconduct, or mission effectiveness. It is an issue of identity being treated as disqualifying.

What happens when medical diagnoses become the basis for separation, rather than support?

A Dangerous Precedent

If the government can discharge someone based on a medical file linked to gender identity today, it begs the question:
Could the same be done tomorrow based on mental health, reproductive history, PTSD, or other protected health conditions?

This policy opens the door to further abuse, creating a precedent where diagnosis equals discharge. That is incompatible with a professional military grounded in constitutional values and civil rights.

Sources and Further Reading:

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm representing military and federal employees across the country. We are committed to defending the constitutional rights of those who serve—regardless of identity, rank, or assignment. From wrongful discharge to discrimination and medical board challenges, we fight for justice on every front.

 Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a service member affected by this policy, contact a qualified attorney to discuss your rights and options.

When Safe Harbor Isn’t Safe—And the Cost Is More Than Just a Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Broken Ranks: How Premature Discharges Are Stripping Armed and Unarmed Service Members of Their Rightful Benefits

Promise Undone

For every military officer or enlisted member, there is a finish line, commonly known as “safe harbor,” that represents not just years of service, but stability, dignity, and the promise of earned retirement. In federal terms, this often means reaching 18 to 20 years of service, at which point a service member becomes eligible for retirement benefits.

But that finish line is increasingly being moved or removed entirely.

From uniformed members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard to their non-armed counterparts in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and NOAA Corps, stories are mounting: individuals relieved from duty without cause, stripped of retirement eligibility, and erased from service records before they can cross that critical threshold. The implications are not just administrative, they’re deeply human.

Who Is Protected—and Who’s Being Pushed Out?

Under the law, all uniformed service members fall under the same protective umbrella. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) codified at 50 U.S. Code § 3911 explicitly includes:

“Members of the uniformed services, including the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

That means USPHS officers, many of whom served at the frontlines of public health crises like COVID-19 and monkeypox, and NOAA Corps officers, who support national environmental and security missions, are legally entitled to protections traditionally associated with the military. These include:

  • Relief from civil actions during active duty
  • Cap on loan interest rates
  • Protection from eviction and foreclosure
  • Termination rights for leases and contracts

What’s missing, however, is enforcement when administrative leadership decides arbitrarily or strategically to relieve someone just before they reach safe harbor.

Systemic Failures, Human Loss

Consider the case of Major Coleman, a reservist who was administratively separated just shy of retirement eligibility. Despite a formal acknowledgment from the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records that an error occurred, Coleman has not been reinstated. The result? A lifetime of military service erased: no pension, no benefits, no honor.

Cases like Coleman’s are not isolated. Reports of officers and senior enlisted personnel being denied reenlistment or separated without clear cause are becoming more frequent across services.

In 2025, the Department of Defense came under scrutiny when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a major initiative to reduce senior officer positions under the banner “Less Generals, More GIs.” This reorganization aims to eliminate more than 120 general and flag officer positions, including active duty and National Guard billets, as part of a broader force restructuring (AP News, May 2025). Critics warn that such cuts could disproportionately impact those nearing retirement eligibility, particularly in the Army Reserve and National Guard, raising legal and ethical questions about whether such reductions are also being used to avoid future pension liabilities.

The Silent Impact on Unarmed Services

While headlines often focus on armed service members, unarmed uniformed personnel, like those in USPHS and NOAA Corps face similar risks with even less public scrutiny. These officers aren’t typically governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but are subject to involuntary separations for administrative reasons, including political shifts or agency restructurings.

Several Public Health Service officers who served during the pandemic have reported being placed on sudden administrative leave or being removed from leadership roles in the months leading up to eligibility for 20-year retirement, a devastating blow given the high-risk conditions under which many serve.

A Pattern Across Administrations

While these actions have become more visible under the current administration due to RIF orders and force realignment, they are not new. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used quiet reductions to shrink federal spending or shift agency priorities. What is new is the volume and the precision with which these discharges are timed, often to occur just before retirement eligibility.

These moves are not just about dollars; they represent a betrayal of trust.

A Legal Fight Worth Having

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, in Washington, DC specializing in military and federal employment law, represent numerous clients caught in this administrative crossfire. “We’re seeing a rise in unlawful terminations under the guise of restructuring,” Sheldon says. “It’s one thing to reform an agency or branch, it’s another to intentionally cut a service member short of the finish line.”

Sheldon emphasizes that these cases are winnable, but only if service members act quickly, document everything, and pursue appeals through Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records or via litigation in federal court.

What’s at Stake

  • Financial Security: Loss of retirement income and health care for life.
  • Reputation: Discharges close to retirement are often perceived as disciplinary—even when they are administrative.
  • Mental Health: Service members describe feeling “discarded,” “betrayed,” and “humiliated” after decades of service.

Holding the Line

Safe harbor isn’t a loophole. It’s a promise made to every uniformed service member, armed or unarmed, that their dedication will be honored with dignity, not dismissed with a discharge memo days before eligibility. As more stories come to light, it’s incumbent on Congress, the media, and the public to scrutinize why these discharges are happening and who benefits from denying long-serving members their due.

Because the integrity of our institutions depends not just on those who serve, but on how we treat them when they are no longer needed.

 References & Resources

Disclaimer
The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

Navy Officer’s Federal Appeal Challenges Arbitrary Promotion Denial and Career-Saving Records Dispute

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Plaintiff Seeks Judicial Review After Navy’s Unjust Delay and Career Impact

A significant appeal has been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the Navy’s prolonged delay and subsequent denial of a career-critical promotion, which the plaintiff argues occurred in direct violation of federal statute. Represented by Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the plaintiff, a decorated Navy Lieutenant, asserts that the Navy’s Board for Correction of Naval Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously by ignoring mandatory promotion timelines and mischaracterizing his service record.

At the heart of the case is the Navy’s failure to promote the plaintiff within the statutory deadline prescribed by 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5), which limits appointment delays to 18 months. The plaintiff’s promotion was delayed nearly 21 months, a violation the Navy itself acknowledged but refused to remedy. Despite exemplary service and a family legacy of military dedication, the plaintiff’s promotion was denied, and he was subjected to an adverse personnel action stemming from a minor 2019 incident aboard the USS Howard, an incident which his command later agreed did not warrant separation from service. The District Court acknowledged the Navy’s statutory breach but held that no enforceable duty existed to promote the plaintiff. The appeal argues this interpretation defies both congressional intent and longstanding precedent affirming the obligation of correction boards to rectify such injustices.

“The Navy delayed this officer’s rightful promotion well beyond what Congress allows,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “The law is clear: such delays may not exceed 18 months, and when they do, the promotion should occurs by operation of law. Our client’s rights, and his career, have been unjustly compromised.”

The lawsuit also challenges the Navy’s decision to uphold a detachment for cause action, which alleged “gross negligence” despite the plaintiff maintaining a record of exceeding performance standards for much of his career, including multiple commendations.

“This case is not just about one officer’s career,” Thayer added. “It’s about ensuring that service members can rely on the laws Congress enacts to protect them from arbitrary administrative overreach.”

The appeal seeks to overturn the District Court’s ruling and compel the Navy to correct the plaintiff’s record and recognize his promotion as having occurred by operation of law.

 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 litigation firm representing service members and federal employees nationwide. The firm advocates in matters of military justice, administrative law, correction of records, security clearance defense, and federal employment disputes.

DISCLAIMER:

The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.