Author: Becky Haugen

Testimonial: “I knew this team would get the job done, and they did.”

Posted on by Becky Haugen

I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Office of David P. Sheldon as well as his team that worked closely with me during this entire legal process. I’m not sure how much I can discuss, but I can say that I was promised something when I was first commissioned and was then later informed that the USPHS made a mistake and would not honor what they originally agreed upon. Common sense told me that this was wrong and unfair and that I needed legal representation. I did seek out two other firms other than David Sheldon and that same common sense told me that this was the firm to represent me, without any reservation. After speaking with David I felt that he had the most experience, the most confidence and the most integrity which instantly gave me a sense of assurance. It was that assurance that made the whole process tolerable and comfortable as well as a deep feeling that I had nothing to worry about. Truly, I knew in the back of my mind that this team would get the job done, and they did. Again I can’t express my gratitude enough for a job well done.

With great thanks,

CDR H

Case Results: USPHS Commander Wins Restoration of Retirement Credits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Another success story for the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon at the Public Health Service Board for Corrections (PHS BFC). The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represented a Commissioned Corps Commander who was promised retirement credit-in writing-for prior federal civilian service, only to be informed just before retirement that the Commissioned Corps was denying the credit.

As a result of our firm’s efforts, the PHS BFC “concluded that Corps actions constituted an egregious error and an injustice.” Our client will now receive the retirement credit so richly deserved and is now eligible to retire immediately since receiving years of constructive service credit.

 

Back to News and Results

Case Results: Complete Relief Army Reserve Captain Wrongfully Denied Retirement

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon obtains complete relief before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records for Reserve Captain wrongfully denied retirement.

Read the Complaint Here

In 2001 Army Reserve Captain Roland Casillas (ret.) was transferred by the Army to the Retired Reserve based on official orders which declared that he had completed 20 years of service. Though he was uncertain as to whether he met this required, the Army Reserve Personnel Center informed him that he indeed met it, and he was issued an ID card identifying him as a member of the Retired Reserve. Though he was seeking reentry into the ranks at the time, he relied on these orders and instead accepted the promised retirement. This meant that he was due an official Army retirement upon reaching the age of 60, including retired pay and medical care. Yet, when he actually reached the age of 60 in 2018, the Army denied his request, this time claiming that Capt. Casillas had insufficient time in the ranks to qualify for retirement. The Army would even issue orders rescinding their orders from 2001 transferring Capt. Casillas to the Retired Reserve. This was in direct violation of long-established case law which holds that the Army cannot deny a retirement to an individual who it had told was qualified for retirement.

In January of 2020 the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon appealed this denial on behalf of Capt. Casillas in the Court of Federal Claims. This resulted in a voluntary remand to the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records on May 14, 2020. This voluntary remand has now successfully concluded for Capt. Casillas, with him receiving back pay, medical benefits, compensation for the denied medical benefits, and his full retirement for life. Capt. Casillas now joins the ranks of the many service members who have had their rights successfully upheld by the firm.

printable version

Testimonial: Veteran Benefits and Retirement Restored for USPHS Member

Posted on by Becky Haugen

My first call with David demonstrated his knowledge of the “system” and gave me hope.I could not get a single phone call returned or an email reply from my service branch without his law firm’s help. As a result of their intervention I’ve been able to receive all the retirement and VA benefits that I was entitled to. These benefits had been ignored or denied, until their legal team set to work on my behalf, and achieved complete resolution. Thanks again to the entire staff of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC.

P.Z.  USPHS/Air Force

Motion Filed to Rightfully Include USPHS and NOAA at Smithsonian Memorial

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Press Release: The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Files Opposition to the Smithsonian’s Motion to Dismiss in USPHS COA v Bunch et al.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC

100 M St SE, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 546 9575

www.militarydefense.com

Read the Complaint Here

Congress created the National Native American Veterans Memorial to be a memorial for all Native veterans. Yet, when it came time to build the memorial, the Smithsonian wrongfully excluded Native veterans of the United States Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. In May, The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, representing the Commissioned Officers’ Association of the United States Public Health Service, filed suit to ensure that those two branches were properly included. The continued denigration of the service of USPHS and NOAA veterans has a pervasive impact on their status before private and public institutions. They are frequently denied benefits both due under statute, and granted by private society, due to ignorance as to their status as veterans. The most egregious example of this is the way in which USPHS commissioned officers, deployed by their country to the hottest spots of the COVID pandemic, were frequently denied early vaccination status by military healthcare facilities ignorant of their status as fellow service members.

Yet, it was on those very grounds that the Smithsonian based their motion to dismiss. They argued that Native veterans of the USPHS and NOAA had no entitlement to inclusion on the monument, and that there was no evidence that the denigration of their service and reputation as “real” veterans had any impact on their societal standing. In addition, they also argued that a question of constitutional interpretation was in fact a political question, not fit for the courts to resolve.

Now, The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon have filed their motion to oppose this attempt to dismiss a rightful claim. In their motion, they demonstrate to the Court the massive impact on societal status of the wrongful denigration and spreading of ignorance as to the veteran status of USPHS and NOAA officers. They also remind the Smithsonian, and the Court, of the clear precedence in the D.C. Circuit that constitutional claims are not, contrary to what was alleged by the Smithsonian, political questions barred from consideration. The Law Offices look forward to the successful resolution of this current round of litigation, to the future success of their case, and to the ensuring that Native USPHS and NOAA officers are given the public commemoration they rightfully deserve.

printable version

Voluntary Remand of BCNR Decision Nealy v. Del Toro

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Press Release: The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Secures Voluntary Remand of BCNR Decision

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC

100 M St SE, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 546 9575

www.militarydefense.com

Read the Complaint Here

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Secures Voluntary Remand of BCNR Decision

On December 29, 2021, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon filed a motion for judgment on the administrative record in the matter of Nealy v. Del Toro, et al. First Class Petty Officer Sean Nealy suffered from severe PTSD following his service in Afghanistan and Iraq working as a sensor operator and technician, coordinating, observing and assessing air strikes while flying above the battlefield. The Physical Evaluation Board merely saw him as a conscientious observer, denigrated his service, and denied him a disability retirement. The Board for Correction of Naval Records, stunningly, concurred with this assessment, finding that Mr. Nealy had not show that he had suffered a “highly stressful event,” despite his direct participation in combat.

In the face of the submitted motion for judgment on the administrative record, the BCNR proposed to the office that the matter instead be voluntarily remanded for further consideration by the BCNR. Our office has accepted. This matter is now returning to the BCNR for the Board to reassess their prior decision, pending the need for further litigation.

printable version

Law Offices File Suit on Behalf of Scapegoated USN Commander to Challenge Wrongful and Unsupported BCNR Decision

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Press Release: Scapegoated USN Commander Eric Cash

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC

100 M St SE, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 546 9575

www.militarydefense.com

Read the Complaint Here

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon file Suit on Behalf of Commander Cash in the District Court for the District of Columbia to have the wrongful and unsupported BCNR decision overturned, and Commander Cash’s charges cleared.

The Navy’s struggle with new ship classes has not been limited to the Littoral Combat Ship. The San Antonio class of amphibious transport docks have been similarly troubled since they first entered the planning stage in 1996. This included severe safety concerns, first discovered in a Navy study in 1998, whose recommendations were never implemented and whose revelations were never told to the future captains of the ships.

The problems with the San Antonio class tragically finally came to a fore with the tragic death of Ensign Theophilus Ansong in 2009, while a small boat was being lowered to transport personnel to another ship. This death was investigated, and responsibility was firmly placed on the safety vulnerabilities of the San Antonio class. The U.S. Navy sent out an emergency alert to change boat launching procedures, and engaged in a massive study of the class, leading to $1 billion in suggested modifications and operational reforms.

Commander Eric Cash and his executive officer Lieutenant Sean Kearns were counseled for the event, but the Navy recognized that it was not their fault. For more than a year, this is where matters ended. However, in May of 2010, Congress made it clear that it intended to conduct hearings on naval readiness, with a particular focus on the San Antonio class. Admiral John C. Harvey was notified that he would be called. In preparation for the hearing, Admiral Harvey decided to resurrect the incident and bring Article 92 charges for dereliction of duty against Commander Cash, Lieutenant Commander Kearns, and the boatswain who had overseen the operation. The grounds were failing to issue a special watch bill, despite it not being required by U.S. Navy practices at the time, and failure to ensure proper supervision, despite all the involved personnel being highly trained and qualified.

Lieutenant Commander Kearns had since left the San Antonio and thus had the right to demand court-martial instead of non-judicial punishment. Within the scope of this evidentiarily rigorous process, both the Government’s and Lieutenant Commander Kearns’ expert witnesses established that a special watch bill wasn’t needed at the time, and the supervision had been adequate. It confirmed what everyone, but Admiral Harvey had been well aware of, Ensign Ansong’s tragic death was due to the faults of the San Antonio class and how the Navy chose to operate them. Following his acquittal on the charges, Lieutenant Commander Kearns would go on to have a flourishing career, making Captain, commanding the USS Constitution, the oldest ship in the fleet, and he is now the head of an NROTC program.

Commander Cash was not so fortunate. He was still at sea, commanding the San Antonio, when charges were pressed against him, and thus did not have the right to the significantly greater evidentiary rigor of court-martial. Though Admiral Harvey still had the right to grant him that, the Admiral wanted to ensure that Commander Cash went through an evidentiarily weaker process. He forced Commander Cash to undergo non-judicial punishment in absentia. The charges were upheld, thanks to the lack of expert testimony and the much sparser evidentiary record. A punitive letter of reprimand was placed in his record and his career was functionally over. Despite being granted the highest possible evaluations over the next five years he was passed over for promotion to Captain thanks to Admiral Harvey’s actions.

In 2018, with the help of the firm, Commander Cash sought to have the Board for Correction of Naval Records undo this injustice. Stunningly, despite the legal advisor specifically noting the strength of his application, the charges were still upheld, on the spurious grounds of what could have been before the NJP. The fact that the same charges on the same nexus of facts resulted in acquittal when a proper evidentiary record was built was ignored, and the civilians of the Board declared that a special watch bill had been “clearly needed.”

Now, these twin injustices are finally set to be corrected. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon have filed suit in the District Court for the District of Columbia to have the wrongful and unsupported BCNR decision overturned, and Commander Cash’s charges cleared. By the end of this year Commander Cash will have been returned to where he should be. The punitive letter of reprimand and the charges will have been cleared from his record and he will be before a special selection board for a proper consideration for promotion to Captain. The path for Commander Cash to clear his good name and return to the Navy he so deeply loves begins now.

printable version

 

Successful Defense for PHS Officer at Board of Corrections

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon successfully represented an officer at the PHS Board for Corrections. The firm argued that the officer should receive years of constructive service credit for education, which is now being retroactively applied to the officer’s retirement pay multiplier.  The officer stands to make hundreds of thousands in additional retirement pay in the circumstance.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon File Federal Complaint on Behalf of Wrongfully Accused Army Reserve Colonel

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Press Release: Nell v. Wormuth et al.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC

100 M St SE, Suite 600

Washington, DC 20003

(202) 546 9575

www.militarydefense.com

Read the complaint here.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon File Federal Complaint on Behalf of Wrongfully Accused Army Reserve Colonel

On December 10, 2021, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon filed a federal complaint opening the matter of Nell v. Wormuth, et al. in the District Court for the District of Columbia. Army Reserve Colonel Karl Nell was falsely accused of whistleblower retaliation by a vindictive subordinate, who was seeking to avoid consequences for their failure to perform their duties and their attempts to sabotage Col. Nell’s reform efforts for a badly under performing unit. These false accusations were found substantiated by the Department of the Army Investigator General, despite two different investigating officers expressing deep concerns about the accuser’s truthfulness. Despite Col. Nell demonstrating the factual errors in the investigation report no less than seven times to both the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records and the Department of the Army I.G., these findings were repeatedly upheld. In its last decision, the ABCMR went so far as to hold that nonbinding commentary overrode its statutory authority to set aside IG findings.

Having been repeatedly stonewalled by the Department of Defense institutions tasked with correcting errors or injustice, Col. Nell came to the firm in April of 2021 to clear his good name of these wrongful findings. Now, the path to relief for him has begun with the filing of the federal complaint. The firm will be moving for partial summary judgment shortly, in order to set aside the ABCMR’s completely unsupported final decision, which was in blatant violation of its own foundational statute.

printable version