Becky Haugen, Author at Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

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

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

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

Overview:

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

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

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

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

Effect on Military Service Members and Federal Employees

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

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

Mobility and Assignment Risk

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

Documentary Alignment and Federal Service Burden

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

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

Doctrinal Posture: Equal Protection & Administrative Law

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

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

Specific Implications for Service Members and Federal Employees

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

Conclusion

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

Key Legal Resources & References

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

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

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

From Contentious Medical Board to a Clean Professional Slate

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

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

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

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

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

-CPT Dr. (RET), USA MC

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

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

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

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

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

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

Why This Case Matters

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

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

DISCLAIMER

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

After a Decade of Waiting, Former Army Officer Finally Wins Long-Overdue Retirement Relief

Posted on November 25, 2025 by Becky Haugen

For more than ten years, a dedicated Army Reserve officer lived under the weight of a decision that abruptly ended her career just months before she reached the crucial milestone needed to secure her earned retirement. Today, that chapter finally closes and a new one begins.

On November 18, 2025, the U.S. Army Human Resources Command formally notified her that her request for a Mandatory Removal Date (MRD) extension has been approved and that the Army has corrected her records to reflect completion of 20 years of qualifying service. The Army simultaneously issued her long-delayed 20-year retirement letter and revoked her 2015 discharge order, clearing the way for her to receive her retirement benefits at last.

This outcome comes after the United States District Court for the District of Columbia ruled earlier this year that the Army’s prior denial was “arbitrary and capricious,” identifying several critical errors in the Army’s reasoning and ordering the case remanded for proper review.

What happened next was extraordinary: the Army, upon reconsideration, agreed with the court, the evidence, and, finally, the truth.

A Story of Service, Setback, and Steadfast Resolve

The woman at the center of this decision served her country faithfully for nearly two decades, joining the Army Reserve later in life, earning respect within her field, and working tirelessly to support soldiers through her medical specialty.

As she approached 20 years of service, she found herself only months short of the threshold that would allow her to retire with the benefits she earned. Despite strong recommendations from Army leadership, she was released from service at age 60 due to administrative interpretations that her specialty was “overstrength.” The decision ended her career several weeks shy of the 18-year mark, an incredibly narrow margin that, if crossed, would have obligated the Army to retain her until she reached the 20 years required for retirement.

She tried everything:

Seeking an extension
Applying to transfer into an understaffed specialty
Requesting reconsideration
Filing FOIA requests
Petitioning the Army Board for Correction of Military Records

Ultimately, she filed suit in federal court because all other doors had closed.

The Court found the Deputy Secretary of the Army’s decision to depart from the recommendation of the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records was inadequately explained and thus arbitrary and capricious. On remand, the Board once again granted the officer the relief she had sought in the first instance. This time, the Deputy Assistant Secretary – recognizing the clear injustice presented – agreed.

The Court found that key Army leadership decisions were based on misunderstanding, incomplete reasoning, or clear factual mistakes. The judge emphasized that her separation, occurring mere months before the pivotal window, raised serious concerns of injustice.

“This outcome is a testament to perseverance and to the principle that fairness must prevail—even when the process takes far too long,” said Dylan Thayer, the attorney representing the client. “For years, she carried the weight of an unjust separation that cut short an honorable career. Today’s decision not only restores what she earned, but it restores her faith that the system can correct itself. I am incredibly proud of her resilience and grateful to have played a role in helping her finally receive the justice she deserved.”

What This Decision Means for Her

This is more than a correction to a file. This is the restoration of a career, a legacy, and long-denied dignity.

Her 2015 discharge has been voided.
Her service record has been corrected to reflect 20 years of qualifying service.
Her eligibility for non-regular retired pay is confirmed.
She now holds her official 20-Year Letter, dated October 1, 2025.
She has been reassigned to the Retired Reserve effective March 10, 2018.

For her, this brings closure to a decade-long fight, one that involved navigating complex Army regulations, surviving administrative errors, and persevering against decisions that repeatedly misunderstood or overlooked the facts.

It means she can finally access the retirement benefits she earned through years of honorable service. It affirms that her contributions mattered, that her record deserved fairness, and that the system, though slow to act, can still correct itself.

This is vindication, and it is justice.

A Positive Step Forward

The decision also offers hope to other soldiers who may find themselves entangled in the opaque processes governing Army separations, MRD extensions, and retirement eligibility. It reaffirms that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records exists for a reason—and that judicial oversight ensures fairness when the administrative process falters.

Most importantly, today’s decision reminds us that behind every policy, regulation, or order is a human being whose life and livelihood hang in the balance.

Disclaimer

The information contained in this press release is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by reading this release. Every case depends on its own facts, and past results do not guarantee or predict similar outcomes. The details of the underlying case have been carefully presented without identifying the client, consistent with privacy and confidentiality obligations. For advice specific to your situation, please contact a qualified attorney.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C., representing service members, veterans, and federal employees across all branches and uniformed services. The firm specializes in complex matters including ABCMR and BCNR appeals, military records corrections, medical and disability retirement cases, security clearance actions, adverse actions, courts-martial defense, and federal employment disputes.

With decades of combined experience, the firm is known for its meticulous case preparation, appellate expertise, and unwavering commitment to securing justice for those who serve. To learn more, visit www.militarydefense.com or contact the firm directly for a confidential consultation.

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

Posted on November 21, 2025November 21, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Recent media coverage has thrust the issue of military obedience and unlawful orders into the headlines. In multiple cities, federal and National Guard deployments have been challenged as exceeding legal authority, and lawmakers have publicly urged service members to refuse orders they believe to be illegal. These developments make this long‑standing legal principle not just theoretical—but urgently relevant for today’s service members. At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we believe now is the right moment to revisit this duty in light of changing command, control and civil‑military relations.

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

Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

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

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)

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)

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.

Attorney Dylan Thayer Argues Military Promotion Case Before the D.C. Circuit: Mitchell v. Phelan

Posted on November 21, 2025November 21, 2025 by Becky Haugen

Update: The live recording Oral Argument Mitchell v Phelan.
Friday, November 21, 2025 9:30 A.M.
Judges Pillard, Walker, Edwards Case 1: 25-5013 Ernest Mitchell v. John Phelan

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, announced that Attorney Dylan Thayer will present oral argument before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Friday, November 21, 2025, in the case Ernest F. Mitchell v. John Phelan, Secretary of the Navy (Case No. 25-5013).

At issue in this appeal is whether the Navy violated federal law when it delayed a service member’s promotion beyond the statutory 18-month limit set by 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5)—and whether that delay automatically entitled Lieutenant Mitchell to promotion “by operation of law.” The case also challenges the Navy’s decision to issue a “detachment for cause”, alleging it was based on arbitrary findings inconsistent with military regulations and fairness standards.

Mitchell, a decorated officer with over a decade of service, was selected and Senate-confirmed for promotion to Lieutenant Commander before the Navy delayed his advancement following a minor disciplinary action. Despite a Board of Inquiry’s recommendation that he remain in service, his promotion was later withdrawn—prompting a challenge before the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR), the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and now the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

Attorney Thayer, who will argue on behalf of LT Mitchell, emphasized the broader implications of the appeal:

“This case isn’t only about one officer’s career,” Thayer said. “It’s about ensuring that the military follows its own laws and deadlines and that service members are not punished twice for the same incident. Congress set an 18-month limit on promotion delays for a reason: to guarantee accountability and prevent arbitrary career destruction.” “It’s also about the plain meaning of the statute.”

The appellant’s brief argues that once the Navy exceeded the statutory delay period, Mitchell was automatically promoted by operation of law, and that the Board for Correction of Naval Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously when it failed to correct this injustice.

The appeal also challenges the Navy’s expansive interpretation of “substandard performance” under MILPERSMAN 1611-020, arguing that no definition of “gross negligence” or “complete disregard of duty” fits the record of an officer consistently rated “Promotable” or “Above Standards” in multiple fitness reports.

Oral argument is scheduled for 9:30 A.M. on November 21, 2025, before a three-judge panel at the E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C. The outcome could set an important precedent on promotion timelines, executive appointment authority, and due process protections for officers across the armed services.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents military service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, boards of inquiry, BCNR and BCMR appeals, and federal court litigation. The firm is nationally recognized for its advocacy in military justice, administrative appeals, and constitutional due process.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Viewing or responding to this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

USPHS Class Action Update

Posted on November 20, 2025November 21, 2025 by Becky Haugen

USPHS Class Action Update: Back Pay and Ongoing Review

Update Class Action Memo 11_20_2025

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has issued an update regarding Futch et al. v. United States (No. 1:25-cv-01915-EDK), the class action pending before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on behalf of U.S. Public Health Service retirees and survivors affected by the 2025 government shutdown.

With the federal government now reopened, the Treasury Department has initiated back pay disbursements for USPHS retirees. While this is a welcome development, the legal question remains unresolved: whether the federal government can suspend pay for uniformed service retirees during future shutdowns.

As counsel for the class, David P. Sheldon and his team will continue to monitor proceedings and oppose any dismissal that fails to address the underlying structural issue.

Retirees and survivors with questions may contact the class coordination team at class.action@militarydefense.com or call 202-546-9575.

Sign-Up to receive updates by using our Contact Us Form

Federal Court Filing Challenges Years-Long Naval Injustice, Seeks Restoration of Honor for Decorated Officer

Posted on November 18, 2025 by Becky Haugen

A Story of Duty, Loss, and the Fight to Correct the Record

In a case that spans more than a decade and cuts to the heart of integrity within the military justice system, a decorated naval officer has filed a powerful legal challenge seeking to correct his record after years of wrongful blame for a tragic maritime accident.

The officer served his country with distinction for nearly a quarter century. His career was abruptly derailed following the death of a sailor during a small-boat operation aboard a naval vessel in the Gulf of Aden. The tragedy, shaped by systemic failures long documented within the ship’s class, triggered immediate scrutiny. But instead of acknowledging years of known mechanical defects, procedural gaps, and unaddressed safety concerns, the Navy unfairly shifted the blame onto the officer, who had done everything he was required to do by Naval regulations to ensure that the operation was conducted safely.

What followed was more than a personal crisis, it became a test of institutional accountability.

A Tragedy Years in the Making

Long before the fatal incident, internal communications, fleet workshops, and technical analyses warned that certain ships suffered from chronic deficiencies, insufficient training guidance, and construction issues that placed sailors at increased risk.

Those warnings never made it to the commanding officers, who as a consequence relied on inaccurate data and outdated procedures, putting themselves and their crews at risk.

When the tragic accident occurred, multiple expert witnesses testified that the operation followed then existing Navy standards and that the failure of the small boat’s engine, combined with equipment and manning limitations, as well as problems endemic to the class of ships as a whole, created a situation that could have happened to any command team under similar conditions.

Yet, despite evidence of systemic failure, the Navy imposed punishment that derailed the officer’s career, stripped him of professional opportunities, and left a shadow over his distinguished service.

The Legal Fight: A Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

This filing signals a turning point. Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC submitted a comprehensive opposition and cross-motion for summary judgment, arguing that the Navy’s actions were unlawful, unsupported by evidence, and contrary to statute.

The motion challenges:

The Navy’s rejection of a Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) recommendation that unanimously supported correcting the officer’s record and granting him a Special Selection Board (SSB), critically needed to repair years of promotion-board harm.
Procedural violations, including the mishandling and loss of material evidence during administrative review.
The legal authority of a Navy attorney, who overruled the BCNR without sufficient statutory power.

This filing asks the federal court not only to correct the officer’s record but, in so doing, to send a message about fairness, accountability, and due process within the military justice system.

A Human Story at Its Core

Behind the filings, the hearings, and the years of administrative struggle is a simple truth:
A service member who dedicated his life to the Navy has spent years fighting for his name to be cleared and his future to be restored.

He does so not for recognition, but because every service member deserves a system that honors the truth, follows the law, and protects the integrity of those who volunteer to lead.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.–based firm nationally recognized for its representation of service members across all branches, federal employees, veterans, and uniformed officers. The firm specializes in military justice, BCNR/ABCMR petitions, security clearance cases, administrative law, and federal litigation. With a commitment to integrity, advocacy, and excellence, the firm fights for those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney–client relationship is formed by this communication. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Army Physician Decision by the Physical Evaluation Board, Opening Path Toward Recovery and Renewal

Posted on November 17, 2025November 18, 2025 by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is pleased to share that a client represented before a U.S. Army Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) has formally accepted the board’s findings, completing a significant step in their journey toward recovery and transition. The case is unique as DOD standards are much more stringent regarding Fitness for Duty when applied to physicians serving on active duty.

After months of evaluation, documentation, and review under the Department of Defense’s medical disability process, the client’s board findings were finalized, and the service member signed the formal DA Form 199, concluding the board’s deliberations. The acceptance signifies not only closure within the administrative process but also a personal milestone — a moment to focus on healing and moving forward.

“This stage often represents both an end and a beginning,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon, founder of the firm. “For many of our clients, the Medical Board/Physical Evaluation Board process can be overwhelming and deeply personal. Finalizing the findings allows them to reclaim stability and begin the next chapter with clarity and dignity.”

The MEB and subsequent Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) processes are designed to assess a service member’s fitness for continued military service and entitlement to disability benefits. For many, these proceedings determine the trajectory of their future — including retirement, benefits, and access to medical care.

In this case, the client’s acceptance of the board’s recommendations represents a successful navigation of a complex administrative system that ensures their medical conditions are recognized and appropriately rated. The outcome underscores the importance of due process, advocacy, and professional representation for service members facing health-related career decisions.

The decision came on the heels of the Informal Physical Evaluation Board finding the soldier Fit for Duty, which was appealed. At a formal hearing, presented by Mr. Sheldon, the Board reversed that finding based upon the testimony of forensic psychologist, another doctor and the Soldier as well. In closing, Sheldon did not mince words: “I understand the Army wants a doctor, they paid for a doctor, but through no fault of his own is this soldier fit to be a doctor.”

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC remains committed to supporting service members through every stage of the disability and separation process — from initial medical evaluations to appeals and correction of military records. The firm celebrates this client’s perseverance and courage in reaching this pivotal step toward long-term recovery and personal stability.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.–based firm dedicated to defending the rights of service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide. With decades of experience in military and federal administrative law, the firm represents clients before the Boards for Correction, Medical and Physical Evaluation Boards, the MSPB, and federal courts, ensuring that those who serve are treated with fairness, honor, and respect.

Disclaimer: The information provided in this post is for general informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice or as forming an attorney–client relationship. The case details have been limited to preserve the privacy of the client and comply with applicable confidentiality regulations. Each service member’s situation is unique, and outcomes may vary based on individual facts, evidence, and applicable law. Readers should consult qualified counsel before relying on or applying the information contained herein.