Author: Becky Haugen

Army Veteran Seeks Justice in Medical Retirement Appeal to Correction Board

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A retired Army National Guard noncommissioned officer has petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct what he says was a deeply flawed administrative process that failed to account for his combat-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) and misrepresented the nature of his discharge.

During a 2004 deployment to Iraq, the veteran was knocked unconscious by an improvised explosive device (IED), resulting in a diagnosed TBI and long-term behavioral health and cognitive impairments. Despite a permanent psychiatric profile, decertification from his instructor role, and a commander’s statement recommending retirement due to diminished performance, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) later found him “fit for duty.”

Shortly afterward, a Qualitative Retention Board from the Arkansas Army National Guard determined he would not be retained, offering no explanation for its decision. As a result, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve, not formally discharged for medical reasons, nor provided with a retirement disability.

The petition, filed by The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, details how the original MEB and subsequent reviews failed to incorporate key medical records or fully consider the extent of his injuries. It also alleges violations of legal procedures, including failure to disclose advisory opinions to the applicant, as required by federal law.

“This veteran’s case is a textbook example of how bureaucratic gaps and incomplete records can undermine justice for injured service members,” attorney David P. Sheldon confirms. “He was medically profiled, removed from his instructional position, and ultimately sidelined without proper recognition or review of his injuries. We are urging the Board to finally correct the record.”

The ABCMR filing is requesting a new evaluation that includes all relevant Department of Veterans Affairs and military medical records, as well as consideration for medical retirement status retroactive to his transfer from service.

When One Piece of Paper Destroys a Career: The Hidden Danger of a Reprimand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

He was the kind of officer others looked up to. Showed up early, stayed late, and took care of his troops. When something needed fixing, he made sure it got done. He was tough, but fair and exactly the kind of leader you want in charge when things get hard. And that’s what got him in trouble.

After years of service, countless sacrifices, and a spotless record, one memo changed everything. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, a GOMOR, landed in his official file, accusing him of “toxic leadership.” What did that mean? No one could really say. The phrase has no clear definition. It’s often thrown around when commanders simply don’t like a particular subordinate. Maybe the officer was too direct. Maybe he pushed his team harder than others. Maybe he didn’t play political games.

And just like that, his career stalled.

GOMORs, unlike regular counseling or feedback, are powerful and dangerous. They don’t just sit in a drawer. They go into your permanent record. They can make you ineligible for promotions, prevent you from transferring, or even push you out of the military completely. They can be used as a quiet way to end someone’s career, without any real due process, evidence, or chance to defend yourself.

The worst part? It’s happening more and more. Officers are getting labeled with “toxic leadership” or “loss of confidence” a vague term that carries heavy weight. Many of these officers are the ones who hold their teams accountable, who push for excellence, who challenge the status quo. But when leadership changes, or when someone higher up decides they want a different kind of personality in the position, the hammer falls.

One reprimand. One accusation. And suddenly, years of service are on the line.

That’s where the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon steps in.

Senior Military Attorney David P. Sheldon and his team have seen it all, officers who are blindsided, confused, and scared. They’ve worked with clients who were told they had no future, no promotion, and no choice but to resign. But with the right legal strategy, things can change.

Sometimes that means fighting to remove the GOMOR altogether. Other times it means correcting the record, filing an appeal, or pushing back against a board that rubber-stamped a punishment without asking questions. The team at David P. Sheldon’s, PLLC firm knows the system inside and out and they know how to affirm the service member’s rights to fair career adjudication.

They’ve helped officers get unfair reprimands removed, promotions reinstated, and careers put back on track. And in cases where the system isn’t accurate, they’ve taken the fight all the way to federal court. Because no one should lose everything they’ve worked for because of one biased letter or a leadership change that didn’t go their way.

The military is built on rules. But sometimes, those rules are applied unfairly. And when that happens, you need someone in your corner who knows how to fight back.

If you or someone you know is facing a GOMOR or LOR, especially one based on incorrect or vague claims or office politics, don’t wait. The earlier you act, the more options you have. One memo shouldn’t define your service, your future, or your legacy.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is here to help you protect all that you’ve earned. Because your career shouldn’t end with a whisper in the hallway, it should be honored for the years of dedication you gave to this country.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally respected military and federal employment law firm. Led by founder David Sheldon, the firm represents service members in GOMOR rebuttals, LOR removal, promotion restoration, discharge upgrades, security clearance appeals, and correction of military records. With decades of combined experience, the firm is committed to defending those who defend our nation.

www.militarydefense.com

Legal Disclaimer:

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or sharing this content. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult with a licensed attorney.

 

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.