Author: Becky Haugen

Private Power, Public Uniform: What Happens When Tech Executives Are Commissioned as Army Officers?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Military Law Analysis on Dual Roles, Conflict of Interest, and the Reach of the UCMJ

 

When four prominent tech executives from companies like Palantir, Meta, OpenAI, and Thinking Machines Lab were appointed as officers in the U.S. Army Reserve, it made headlines for its novelty, but the deeper issue is legal, not symbolic. These appointments raise serious concerns under federal ethics laws and military justice statutes, especially where government contracts and national defense intersect with private enterprises.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, where we specialize in military and federal law, we recognize the growing legal complexity faced by service members who also maintain civilian leadership roles in the private sector. The direct commissioning of executives with active Department of Defense (DoD) contracts into the military is not just unusual, it may push the limits of conflict-of-interest protections and military accountability.

While Reserve officers typically serve part-time and do not require Senate confirmation, their legal obligations under military law are anything but part-time. Once commissioned, these individuals become subject to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and more importantly, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) when performing military duties or training. That means a tech CEO wearing the uniform on drill weekend or while representing the military in any official capacity is legally accountable under Articles of the UCMJ such as:

  • Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful orders)
  • Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer)
  • Article 134 (General article, including ethics violations)

These articles apply regardless of civilian status or rank in the private sector. Further, Reserve officers must comply with regulations such as the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.07-R) and federal conflict statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 208, which bars federal personnel from participating in government matters that impact their personal or financial interests.

This raises fundamental questions: If an Army Reserve officer is also an executive at a company bidding for, or executing, government contracts, can that officer truly separate military service from private gain? Even with recusals or waivers, the appearance of undue influence or privileged access could undermine the integrity of both military command and procurement processes.

What makes these cases particularly sensitive is the evolving role of artificial intelligence, data infrastructure, and cloud technology in U.S. defense strategy. Companies like Palantir and Meta are not just tech firms, they are defense stakeholders. Their leaders’ dual roles now bring unprecedented proximity to the strategic, ethical, and legal frameworks that govern military decision-making.

The military has long relied on direct commissions to attract specialized civilian talent, doctors, lawyers, chaplains, but these new appointments suggest a possible strategic shift that blurs lines between private sector innovation and military authority. Without greater oversight, clearer regulations, and firm enforcement of military law, the implications could be profound, not only for military readiness and contracting fairness, but for public trust.

As a military law firm that has represented hundreds of service members facing administrative actions, ethics investigations, and UCMJ charges, we know how critical it is to protect the legal boundaries between personal interests and public duty. The Reserve commission is not symbolic; it is a legal obligation backed by the full force of military law.

If you are a service member, Reservist, or civilian professional navigating similar dual-role concerns, particularly in defense contracting or federal employment, we encourage you to seek legal counsel. The consequences of crossing the line between civilian advantage and military duty can be more than reputational, they can be legal.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, is a nationally recognized law firm representing service members, federal employees, and civilians in military justice and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented clients in courts-martial, separation boards, security clearance revocations, and conflict-of-interest matters across the armed services.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For personalized legal guidance, please consult a licensed attorney.

Decorated Public Health Service Officer Fights Unjust Forced Retirement: What’s at Stake in Her Appeal

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps has filed a formal appeal to halt what her legal counsel describes as a premature and procedurally flawed forced retirement that jeopardizes her pension, professional standing, and years of public service. The appeal was filed by her attorney, Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

The officer, a Commander with over 20 years of honorable and decorated service, was notified last month that she would be involuntarily retired effective August 1, 2025. The decision followed a sudden Return to Service order and placement in a non-duty pay status without written documentation or the due process outlined in Public Health Service policy. Despite these irregularities, and her active efforts to secure a new assignment, an Involuntary Retirement Board (IRB) was convened and recommended her retirement.

Her legal team asserts that the IRB’s action is not only premature, but also denies the officer the opportunity to complete her service on her own terms—potentially costing her:

  • Additional creditable time in service toward retirement,
  • A higher annuity under the High-36 pension calculation,
  • Future eligibility for promotion to O-6 (Captain),
  • And the ability to preserve her professional record and legacy.

“This is more than a personnel dispute, it’s a matter of justice, fairness, and a decorated officer’s right to continue serving,” said attorney Annie Morgan. “She secured a new federal assignment before her scheduled return date. There’s no reason to push her out early. The loss of rank, retirement earnings, and professional dignity are too great a price for a flawed administrative process.”

The Commander, who has received Presidential Unit Commendations, served in national leadership roles, and was hand-selected to lead critical emergency response teams, has since accepted a position with the Bureau of Prisons in Victorville, California. However, with just weeks to go before her return, her leadership informed her that the retirement process was “already underway” and refused to facilitate her reassignment.

Her appeal argues for reinstatement so that she may continue her service and retire with the full benefits, respect, and recognition she has earned.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C., with a legacy of defending the rights and careers of service members and federal officers across the nation. The firm provides trusted representation in administrative appeals, courts-martial, involuntary separations, and national security matters.

 

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Individuals seeking legal counsel should contact an attorney for specific guidance regarding their case.

Public Health Service Physician’s Journey from Ebola Response to Reprimand Spurs Fight for Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated physician in the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) is seeking justice after being reprimanded and denied promotion due to administrative readiness lapses that occurred while he was serving in a civilian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Commissioned since 2012, the officer began his career as a pharmacist before attending medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). His service includes deployment to Liberia during the West African Ebola outbreak, where he contributed to the nation’s public health mission on the front lines of a global crisis. After graduating from medical school in 2020, he completed a rigorous three-year Family Medicine residency, all while the world faced the strain of a pandemic.

Despite his unwavering commitment, 2023 brought a blow: the Commissioned Corps issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) citing failure to maintain readiness requirements. The reprimand was based on administrative errors, missed documentation uploads, not actual medical or physical shortcomings. At the time, the officer was in a non-deployable, civilian training program, under the belief that readiness standards did not apply during residency.

“That period was one of the most intense and formative chapters of my life,” said the physician. “I was balancing pandemic care, 80-hour weeks, and professional growth, believing I was doing everything expected of me to become a better provider for underserved communities.”

Now a board-certified Family Medicine doctor working with the Indian Health Service, he faces long-term career consequences. Because of the reprimand, he was removed from promotion eligibility through 2027 and threatened with involuntary separation unless he resigned. Resignation would trigger a penalty under his Commissioned Service Obligation, costing him an estimated 1 million dollars.

His request for correction, now under review by the Board for Correction of USPHS Records, seeks to remove the reprimand, restore promotion eligibility, and grant back pay. The argument is clear: USPHS policy does not apply readiness standards to officers in training, and the reprimand represents both a legal error and a deep injustice.

Represented by Senior Military Attorney Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the physician has laid out a strong case for administrative relief, supported by internal correspondence, legal precedent, and a consistent record of exemplary service.

“This isn’t about evading responsibility, it’s about recognizing when rules are misapplied and good service members are unfairly penalized,” said the officer. “I’m still here, still serving, and still committed. I just want the chance to do so without this shadow over my record.”

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for representing military and federal personnel in correction of records, promotion denials, discharge upgrades, and other matters of military justice and administrative law.

Disclaimer

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

U.S. Air Force Member Granted Honorable Discharge, Opens Path to Medical Evaluation Board Review

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A service member represented by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has been granted an Honorable Discharge from the United States Air Force, following the approval of a conditional waiver by Major General Daniel A. DeVoe, Commander of the Air Force District of Washington (AFDW). This decision closes an administrative separation proceeding and allows the member to move forward with a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) process to address service-related health concerns.

Originally initiated due to allegations of misconduct, the administrative discharge proceedings temporarily halted the member’s medical review process. However, with the recent decision to issue an Honorable Discharge, the member is now eligible to pursue further review before the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) in an effort to reinstate the MEB.

“This is a significant and affirming step,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “It not only honors our client’s service but also acknowledges the importance of ensuring access to the medical systems designed to support service members affected by trauma. We are now in a position to re-engage with the MEB process so that our client can receive a full and fair evaluation of their health conditions.”

The member’s appeal to preserve the MEB was initially denied after a military separation board determined that the member’s conduct was not linked to any underlying service-connected disability. That decision is now subject to further review. The legal team argues that the misconduct was closely tied to undiagnosed or untreated PTSD and related behaviors stemming from operational stress.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is now preparing the client’s petition to the AFBCMR, advocating for the reinstatement of MEB proceedings and any related benefits the member may be entitled to under military disability retirement rules.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provides aggressive and compassionate legal representation to service members across all branches of the military. The firm is nationally recognized for its expertise in military justice, medical retirements, security clearance defense, and discharge upgrades.

Legal Disclaimer: The content of this press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes. Individuals seeking legal representation should consult with a qualified attorney.

Missouri Jury Sides with Veteran in PTSD Workplace Discrimination Case: A Turning Point for Mental Health Rights?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Missouri jury recently awarded a veteran $700,000.00 in damages after finding his PTSD, a service-related, disabling mental health condition was not reasonably accommodated at work. The decision is significant as it treats PTSD with the same gravity as physical disabilities, sending a clear message to employers across the U.S.

This ruling may be early evidence of a legal shift that mental health is stepping into the same protective space as physical health under disability law. Employers should take note training, workplace flexibility, and early accommodation could soon go from optional best-practices to legal necessities.

Moreover, as veterans face stricter evidentiary standards in VA proceedings, workplace rulings like this may offer an alternate path to recognition and relief. Importantly, insurers and employers may now have a business imperative to revisit their PTSD and mental health policies.

This isn’t just one Veteran’s legal win as it could mark a turning point for mental-health accommodations in the workplace.

The Missouri verdict, while not binding nationwide, is a high-profile affirmation that PTSD can be a workplace disability requiring legal protection. It aligns with evolving expectations—legal, corporate, and cultural—that mental health deserves serious, structured support in employment. Employers, insurers, and advocates should treat this case as a catalyst: it’s time to fully integrate mental health into workplace rights and practices.

Resources

Commissioning Restored: Legal Advocacy Secures Future for Disenrolled ROTC Cadet

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a promising ROTC cadet faced sudden disenrollment just days before his scheduled commissioning and college graduation, it nearly derailed years of dedication, training, and commitment to military service. But with the support of his family and the swift intervention of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC, justice prevailed.

This case, led by Attorney David P. Sheldon, is a reminder of the stakes involved when ROTC disenrollment actions occur without a full and fair understanding of the facts. And more importantly, it demonstrates how legal support can make the difference between a lost opportunity and a restored future.

“The Law Office of David Sheldon is nothing short of responsive, professional, and deeply committed when it comes to representing their clients,” shared the cadet’s mother. “Thanks to Mr. Sheldon and his team, our son was given back his chance to serve.”

A Misjudged Moment with Major Consequences

The cadet had a long-standing record of strong academic performance, demonstrated leadership, and unwavering commitment to his service branch. However, in the final week before commissioning, a procedural misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of events led his detachment to pursue disenrollment based on concerns that did not reflect his true conduct or character.

Without legal intervention, these types of allegations, especially when raised so close to graduation can lead to devastating outcomes. In this case, the cadet’s future service, graduation standing, and career trajectory were all placed at risk.

“They listened to us, answered every question, and most importantly, they believed in our son when others didn’t,” said the cadet’s mother.

Standing Up for Integrity, Due Process, and Leadership Potential

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon worked quickly to ensure the cadet’s record and intentions were accurately represented. Through a combination of legal advocacy, supporting testimony, and thorough documentation, the firm ensured that his conduct was reviewed in full context.

Multiple community members and mentors provided strong character references, attesting to the cadet’s fitness for service and his long-standing desire to serve his country. These efforts helped create a balanced view that ultimately enabled ROTC leadership to revisit their decision.

“This was never about just fixing a mistake,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon. “It was about ensuring that a capable and committed future officer was not denied his rightful opportunity to serve based on an incomplete or unfair process.”

The Outcome: Commissioning Achieved, Future Secured

Although the cadet was unable to commission on his originally scheduled date, the firm’s legal efforts led to a reversal within 48 hours. He officially entered active duty just days later and now serves proudly in the U.S. Air Force.

This case stands as a powerful reminder: disenrollment decisions—especially those made under pressure or without full context—must be carefully examined. Cadets and their families should know that they have the right to contest those decisions, and that competent legal counsel can make all the difference.

“Justice was served,” the family shared. “Thanks to this team, our son is fulfilling his dream and wearing the uniform with pride.”

Supreme Court Ruling in Soto v. United States Expands Retroactive CRSC Benefits for Veterans

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Supreme Court Delivers a Legal Victory for Combat-Injured Veterans

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, affirming that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims. This landmark ruling significantly expands the scope of retroactive benefits available to thousands of disabled veterans nationwide.

Background

Simon Soto, a retired Marine, applied for CRSC benefits in 2016. While the Navy approved his eligibility, it limited his retroactive compensation to just six years, citing the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702), which generally prohibits payment of claims older than six years. Soto challenged this cap, arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) was not subject to the Barring Act because it is administered under a distinct statutory scheme that gives the Secretary of the Navy independent settlement authority.

While a lower court initially sided with Soto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, prompting Soto to petition the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Ruling

In its opinion in Soto v. United States, No. 23-1053, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRSC statute does indeed grant the Secretary the authority to “settle” claims, thereby placing CRSC outside the Barring Act’s limitations period. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that CRSC’s statutory structure empowers the Secretary to determine eligibility and the amount due—hallmarks of settlement authority.

“The CRSC statute is just such a law,” wrote Justice Jackson. “It authorizes the Secretary of the military department to determine eligibility and calculate the amount payable. The Barring Act therefore does not apply.”

Read the full opinion: Soto v. United States (SCOTUS Opinion, June 12, 2025)

What This Means for Veterans

This decision clears a long-standing bureaucratic hurdle for veterans who were previously capped at six years of retroactive CRSC payments. With the ruling, veterans may now be eligible for compensation dating back to when their entitlement began—even if it was more than six years ago.

This is especially impactful for retirees who:

  • Received delayed disability ratings from the VA.
  • Were unaware of CRSC eligibility due to miscommunication or misinformation.
  • Faced systemic delays in applying.

Estimates suggest that over 9,000 veterans affected by the six-year limit may now pursue additional tax-free benefits. Veterans previously denied full back pay under CRSC should revisit their claims immediately. Legal assistance from attorneys experienced in military compensation law may be essential in pursuing the additional entitlements now available under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Legal Citations & Resources

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC did not represent the plaintiff in this case. Veterans seeking to understand how this decision may impact their Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) entitlements are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney experienced in military compensation law. Every case is fact-specific, and legal outcomes may vary.

After Air Force Discrimination Settlement, National Guard Memo Signals Internal Response to Harassment Concerns

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Civilian HR Memo Appears in Wake of High-Profile EEOC Settlement: A Sign of Policy Reinforcement at the National Guard Bureau?

In the aftermath of a significant EEOC-approved discrimination settlement involving a senior Air Force civilian, new developments have emerged at the Temple Army Readiness Center (TARC), home to several Army National Guard Bureau (NGB) offices, including Civilian Human Resources.

Recently, a memo titled “Civilian Management” authored by Lisa M. Sessions, HR Specialist (ARNG-HCM-CMB), was discovered posted at TARC. Though the document itself offers a high-level overview of HR responsibilities for Title 5 and Title 10 civilians, its timing and location suggest it may be more than routine communication.

While the memo does not reference any specific case or individual, those familiar with ongoing personnel matters at TARC note that it was likely posted in response to HR concerns and as a corrective step following the resolution of a federal discrimination case.

That case, which involved allegations of workplace harassment, racial and age-based discrimination, and a hostile supervisory environment was resolved in April 2025 with a multi-six-figure settlement and six-figure attorney fee reimbursement after formal EEOC review and judicial approval. According to public information, the complainant, a high-ranking African American federal civilian, had endured repeated incidents that prompted legal action and ultimately institutional remedies.

Legal professionals reviewing the matter believe the Civilian Management memo may reflect an effort by HR leadership at NGB to assert visibility, clarify roles, and demonstrate responsiveness to emerging personnel challenges. However, questions remain about the memo’s authorship authority, distribution method, and whether proper protocols were followed in its posting at a secure federal site like TARC.

More notably, the memo’s content, while affirming the administrative scope of Civilian HR does not explicitly reference EEO procedures, anti-harassment protocols, or the rights of employees to report misconduct, leaving some observers to question whether the posting sufficiently addressed the concerns it may have intended to quell.

“Given the legal and financial consequences federal agencies now face when harassment is mishandled, internal communications must be both timely and policy-compliant,” one legal analyst familiar with the matter commented. “Posting an HR overview may be part of a good-faith response, but without context or clear EEO guidance, the impact is limited.”

The Civilian Management branch of the Army National Guard oversees a broad array of personnel actions, from staffing and classification to labor relations and awards administration. Whether this memo reflects a shift in internal culture or simply a reactive gesture remains to be seen.

What is clear is that agencies across the federal spectrum are now operating under heightened scrutiny, especially when cases of discrimination and retaliation surface. As recent legal outcomes continue to shape institutional responses, effective policy implementation will be judged not only by documentation, but by procedural integrity and employee trust.

 

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it reflect the official views or statements of any government agency or party involved in the referenced matters. The authors do not represent the federal government, the complainant, or any individuals mentioned in this narrative. All opinions expressed are based on publicly available information and are intended to contribute to the broader discussion on workplace rights, procedural transparency, and civilian personnel policy within federal agencies. Readers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding specific circumstances.

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