Author: Becky Haugen

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

Promise Undone

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Systemic Failures, Human Loss

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

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

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

The Silent Impact on Unarmed Services

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

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

A Pattern Across Administrations

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

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

A Legal Fight Worth Having

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

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

What’s at Stake

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

Holding the Line

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

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

 References & Resources

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a premier military and federal litigation firm representing service members and federal employees nationwide. The firm advocates in matters of military justice, administrative law, correction of records, security clearance defense, and federal employment disputes.

DISCLAIMER:

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

When Justice Crosses Borders: Defending Veterans’ Rights Beyond the Battlefield

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Joe St. Clair once wore the uniform of the United States Air Force, standing watch in hostile territory during four combat tours in Afghanistan. He didn’t ask whether the nation would have his back if things went wrong — that trust was a given. But now, sitting in a prison cell in Caracas, Venezuela, that trust is being tested in ways no veteran should ever have to endure.

At 33 years old, St. Clair has gone from decorated combat veteran to an unwilling participant in what experts call “hostage diplomacy.” Venezuelan authorities detained him last October near the border with Colombia while he was traveling with a friend. No formal charges have been brought. His possessions were seized. He was transported across an international border without explanation. The U.S. State Department has since classified his detention as “wrongful,” yet St. Clair remains locked inside Rodeo One — a prison infamous for human rights abuses and masked guards who answer to names like “Hitler” and “Demon.”

This case is more than a diplomatic problem. It is a direct challenge to the core principles of military justice and veterans’ rights. Too often, once service members hang up the uniform, the legal protections and structured support that once safeguarded them can dissipate — especially when international borders complicate matters. But military justice isn’t merely a system of courts and codes. It is the embodiment of a promise: that those who step forward to defend the nation will, in turn, be defended by it, wherever they may be.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice may not extend into the hands of foreign governments, but the values it represents do. St. Clair’s wrongful detention violates not just international norms but also the expectations the military instills in every service member — that due process, human dignity, and the rule of law are non-negotiable. His case underscores how veterans remain vulnerable targets in geopolitical disputes. Without the full weight of their government behind them, they risk becoming bargaining chips in conflicts they neither started nor can control.

St. Clair’s imprisonment is a litmus test. Not only of how far the United States is willing to go to protect its citizens abroad but of how firmly military justice advocates and veterans’ rights defenders will stand when the law falls silent in foreign lands. His family’s calls for help should not echo into a void. They should galvanize the Department of Defense, the State Department, Congress, and the legal community to ensure that this veteran — and others like him — are not left to face injustice alone.

The battle for Joe St. Clair’s freedom is not just about securing his release. It is about reaffirming a national commitment to every veteran that their sacrifice does not expire with their service contract. Whether facing courts-martial here at home or unjust imprisonment abroad, they deserve unwavering defense. Our legal obligations may encounter borders. Our moral ones should not.

This nation cannot afford to let a decorated Air Force veteran — one of its own — become a silent casualty in the shadows of foreign prisons.

Stripes: Veteran Service Member Detained

Delay. Defer. Defend. Your Legal Rights Under IRR and National Guard Orders

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Are you in the IRR or National Guard and just received activation orders?

With the potential call up of tens of thousands of those of you who have been marking time in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), the National Guard or the Army Reserves for almost a decade now, one needs to act carefully to ensure that you consider your options. You may have established a career, a family, and the responsibilities that come with those things when suddenly you are faced with activation and deployment orders. Your world just blew up. Now what?

Recent events in the Middle East portend activation and deployment orders for thousands, if not a 100,000 service members by the end game. Individuals who have served in the National Guard or Reserves may do so believing their commitment will likely remain restricted to weekends or a few weeks a year. While activation and deployment orders are always possible, these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen may not be prepared, especially those who serve in the IRR, to activate and deploy.

Reservists and members of the National Guard should certainly take note and, of course, have a plan in place, especially if they are not in a position to deploy because of work and/or family obligations. But Congress has also allowed for service members to request delay and exemption from orders, through the delay and exemption board. But you must meet the statutory and regulatory bases. And, like everything, timing is critical.

It is important for Reserve and Guard members to understand the time frames in which they may request a delay or deferment in reporting, or an exemption from active duty, since untimely requests may not be processed, and even timely requests can be severely truncated by not understanding the rules and regulations that govern delay and exemption boards. It is also important to have an understanding of the differences between the types of requests and how they may affect a Reserve or Guard member.

The process varies depending on the military department involved, although if denied, generally appeals are available. Having an experienced attorney from the get-go can be critical since members may not be aware of exactly what information they need to provide before a request is considered. Although the process begins with a phone call or a form which may seem simple enough to complete, it is important to know what information a board is looking for in order to provide the strongest application possible. If past conflicts have taught us anything, it is that National Guard members and reservists need to be prepared. Timing is critical. The bottom line is that before you call the number on your orders to the delay and exemption board, let alone submit the form that governs, consult the rules and regulations that apply — or, better yet — call a qualified legal counsel that can assist you in making the very best case for a delay and exemption of your activation and deployment.

 

 

 

Complaint Highlights Navy’s Disparate Treatment and Violations of Federal Law

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Decorated Navy Officer Sues United States for Age Discrimination and Breach of Military Retirement Promises

Complaint Highlights Navy’s Disparate Treatment and Violations of Federal Law

Washington, D.C. — A decorated senior Navy officer has filed a lawsuit against the United States, alleging that the Navy unlawfully discharged him based solely on his age and denied him the prorated retirement benefits he was promised. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, contends that the Navy violated multiple federal laws and applied inconsistent retirement policies, resulting in the abrupt termination of the officer’s 13-year military career.

The officer, represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC asserts that he relied on direct assurances from Navy personnel that he would qualify for prorated retirement benefits if he served until age 62. However, when he reached the agreed-upon retirement age, the Navy discharged him without benefits, citing amended policies applied retroactively to his detriment.

“Military personnel rely on clear, consistent policies when making life-altering career decisions,” said attorney Dylan Thayer. “Our client chose to continue serving based on assurances from the Navy. The reversal of those commitments, through retroactive application of policy changes, is not only unjust but legally indefensible.”

Legal Violations Cited

The complaint alleges several federal legal violations, including:

  • Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) (29 U.S.C. § 633a(a)), which requires that personnel actions affecting federal employees over age 40 be free from age bias. Read the statute
  • Military Pay Act (37 U.S.C. § 204(a)(1)), which mandates proper pay for military service members based on rank and years of service. Read the statute
  • Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 1491), authorizing claims for monetary relief when federal agencies violate contractual or statutory obligations. Read the statute

The lawsuit also highlights the Navy’s retroactive application of changes to 10 U.S.C. § 1251, governing mandatory retirement. The officer was counseled under the original law, which guaranteed retirement at age 62 with prorated benefits. Amendments made in 2021, years after his service began, eliminated that protection. Read the statute

The lawsuit seeks:

  • Full back pay from the date of discharge
  • Reinstatement to active duty without age-based disqualification
  • Restoration of retirement benefits
  • Attorney’s fees and costs under the Equal Access to Justice Act (28 U.S.C. § 2412). Read the statute

A Case with National Implications

This case raises broader questions about how the military updates policies affecting retirement and whether retroactive application can undermine service members’ legal and financial expectations.

“If the military can change the rules mid-career and apply them retroactively, no service member can be assured of receiving the benefits they were promised,” Thayer concluded.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm specializing in military and federal litigation. The firm represents service members and federal employees in retirement disputes, discharge cases, courts-martial, and age and disability discrimination claims. Its attorneys are committed to upholding the rights of those who serve the nation.

Contact:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street, S.E., Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20003
Tel: 202.546.9575
www.militarydefense.com

 

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. Individuals seeking legal advice should consult qualified counsel.

Betrayed by the System: Honorably Separated Army Veteran Fights Back After Privacy Breach

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Former Army Soldier Brings Lawsuit under the Privacy Act Seeking Justice for the Illegal & Unlawful Dissemination of Documents Within His Official Military Personnel File.

In a new federal lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia files against the Department of the Army for violations of the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552a, a former Army soldier fights back. The case tells the story of a decorated Army veteran whose confidential military records were unlawfully accessed and weaponized in a personal dispute, leading to profound personal and economic harm.

The plaintiff, a former Staff Sergeant honorably discharged after nearly a decade of service, had earned multiple commendations, including the Army Commendation Medal and three Army Achievement Medals. His Official Military Personnel File (OMPF), protected under federal law, should have remained confidential. Instead, a tangled web of misconduct ensued: through illicit access by a member of his former unit, personal records including an official photograph stamped “FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY” were leaked to his estranged former girlfriend who was unaffiliated with the military. Those records were then used maliciously during court proceedings to shame and discredit him.

This filing asserts that a current Army Staff Sergeant deliberately obtained and shared these records without consent or legal justification, violating the core tenets of the Privacy Act. A subsequent Army investigation confirmed the breach, yet the Army withheld details of disciplinary action against the violator, citing “privacy concerns,” a bitter irony, considering the veteran’s rights had already been severely violated.

At stake is not merely personal redress. This case seeks to hold the Army accountable for systemic failures in safeguarding service members’ records. The complaint demands monetary damages for emotional and financial injuries, the correction of inaccurate or derogatory records, and legal fees, but more critically, it serves as a bellwether to ensure federal agencies uphold their sacred trust to protect those who have served.

What This Filing Means for the Defendant

The Department of the Army must now answer for its breach of duty under the Privacy Act. The lawsuit challenges not only the actions of the individuals involved but also the Army’s systemic inability to prevent, detect, or properly respond to the unauthorized disclosure of protected information. A successful verdict could force greater transparency, reform, and accountability within military record-keeping systems.

Correcting a Deep Wrong

Beyond personal vindication, this legal action seeks to affirm a basic principle: that those who serve their country should not have their private histories weaponized against them. Through this suit, the plaintiff demands that the government right this wrong, restoring dignity, enforcing accountability, and strengthening privacy protections for all service members.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon:

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm. With decades of experience defending service members and federal employees, the firm brings unparalleled dedication to safeguarding the rights, careers, and reputations of those who serve our nation.  The firm previously won the right of servicemembers the right to sue in Cummings v. Department of the Navy and In re: Sealed Case, Mr. Sheldon won the right for National Guard members to sue under the Privacy Act-even if the member is under state orders.

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

Error and Injustice Reversed in Clearing CDL Driver’s Mistaken Record in National Driver Register

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Secures Clearance for Professional Driver Wrongfully Suspended Due to State Record Error

Washington, D.C. – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has successfully resolved a critical driver’s license suspension case on behalf of a Pennsylvania resident whose professional livelihood was threatened by an unfounded suspension recorded in Tennessee.

The plaintiff, a professional driver, was wrongfully flagged in the National Driver Register due to a decades-old Tennessee violation record that did not belong to them. Despite clear evidence that they were not the driver who had failed to appear in Tennessee court or pay the related fine, the error caused the suspension of their driving privileges and blocked the renewal of their Pennsylvania CDL driver’s license.

The wrongful suspension jeopardized the plaintiff’s ability to drive commercially, causing significant and unjust hardship, including the loss of income opportunities and disruption to their professional life.

Through tenacious legal advocacy, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC worked directly with the Tennessee Department of Safety and Homeland Security, the Williamson County Juvenile Court, and Pennsylvania’s Department of Transportation (PennDOT). After a detailed legal review, Tennessee officials formally reversed the erroneous suspension and cleared the plaintiff’s driving record, allowing the plaintiff to regain their full commercial and personal driving privileges.

“Our client was unfairly burdened by an error that had real, damaging consequences on their ability to work and provide for themselves,” said David P. Sheldon, founding attorney. “No individual should have to suffer career-altering setbacks due to bureaucratic mistakes. We were proud to stand up for our client, correct the record, and restore their rights.”

The firm remains committed to defending individuals who face unfair or erroneous government actions, when administrative errors interfere with livelihoods, security, and personal rights.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC specializes in military, federal, and administrative law. The firm has earned national recognition for defending service members, veterans, and civilians against injustice in administrative and court proceedings.

Contact:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600
Washington, D.C. 20003
Phone: (202) 546-9575
www.militarydefense.com

Disclaimer:
This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.

SCOTUS Ruling Changes How VA Disability Claim Appeals Are Handled

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Protecting Your Rights: Why Strong Medical Documentation is Vital for Your VA Disability Claims

By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bufkin v. McDonough (March 5, 2025) has changed the landscape for veterans seeking to challenge the denial of VA disability claims. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must apply a “clear error” standard when reviewing factual findings made by the VA. In practical terms, this means courts are no longer permitted to reassess the evidence independently; they may only overturn a VA decision if it is “clearly erroneous.” (SCOTUS Opinion)

This shift serves as a wake-up call to both active-duty service members and veterans: your best chance to protect your benefits begins at the first step of the process. If you do not thoroughly document your disabilities and service-related injuries from the outset, it becomes far harder to fix mistakes later.

We at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon want to emphasize what this means for you.

When you apply for disability benefits, the VA evaluates your case primarily based on the medical records, service treatment records, and personal statements you provide. Historically, veterans were given a degree of deference under the “benefit of the doubt” rule codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). However, following Bufkin, even if the evidence is close, unless you can show that the VA made a clear, undeniable mistake, appeals courts are bound to uphold the VA’s decision.

Therefore, the burden is squarely on the veteran to submit compelling, well-documented, and complete evidence from the start.

  • Medical examinations should be thorough and service-connected.
  • Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) can make a powerful difference.
  • Personal statements must be detailed, credible, and consistent.
  • Buddy statements from fellow service members or supervisors should corroborate your claims.
  • Any psychological conditions (such as PTSD) must be clearly diagnosed and linked to specific in-service events.

Additional resources that may assist you:

For active-duty service members, it is crucial to document every injury, illness, and incident while you are still in uniform. Insist that every medical complaint is recorded accurately in your service treatment records. A casual “I’ll tough it out” attitude could cost you dearly years later.

For retirees and separated veterans, if you suspect you were short-changed by the VA or if your condition has worsened, gather updated medical evaluations immediately. Do not rely on the appeal process alone to “correct” a weak record — build the strongest possible case at the earliest opportunity.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon has decades of experience fighting for the rights of service members and veterans nationwide. We understand how to craft persuasive legal arguments, but we cannot stress enough: you are your own best advocate when it comes to creating the factual record the law now demands.

In the wake of Bufkin v. McDonough, protecting your rights is about more than simply applying for benefits — it is about strategically defending your future from the very first form you file.

If you have questions about your disability rating, pending claims, or appeal strategies, contact our office today. We are honored to stand beside those who have served.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members and veterans nationwide in matters of military justice, security clearance defense, disability claims, and federal employment rights. Our mission is to ensure that every service member receives the full measure of justice and benefits they deserve.

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

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact an attorney for personalized guidance.

The Silence That Killed Her: How the Army Missed a Soldier’s Cancer and Then Denied Her Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Maria Martinez A Life Cut Short By Military Malpractice
Photo of Maria Martinez before.             Her Father Carrying Maria, His Daughter, Down Stairs 
By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
April 24, 2025 | Washington, D.C.

Maria was 23 years old when she first told her primary care provider something was wrong.

She had a known BRCA2 mutation, a family history steeped in breast and ovarian cancer, and symptoms that no one could ignore, nipple retraction, a persistent rash, chest pain, and shortness of breath that worsened by the day. She followed every protocol. She asked for care. And she trusted the system built to protect her.

But the system, the Army’s medical bureaucracy, failed her.

Again and again, Maria returned to her military clinic at Fort Bliss. A civilian breast specialist, concerned about her condition, recommended an MRI to rule out Paget’s disease, a rare form of breast cancer. But the order was incorrectly entered as a routine screening rather than a diagnostic test. That subtle coding error, one checkbox, led to two denials by TRICARE. Even after oncology clarified the necessity, her request remained tangled in backlogs and electronic referrals, unaddressed for months.

As her pain worsened and her lungs began to fill with bloody fluid, Maria’s symptoms were written off as psychological. A misdiagnosis of bipolar disorder appeared in her chart. One provider even suggested she had borderline personality disorder, attributing her despair and anxiety to mental instability, not the growing cancer that was quietly spreading to her bones, liver, and lungs.

“She was trying to survive,” said one of the physicians who later treated her at William Beaumont Army Medical Center. “We were draining liters of fluid from her chest every other day. Her cancer was everywhere, and we all knew what it meant. But she kept smiling. She kept fighting.”

As her condition worsened and her body began to fail, her family turned to the only path for accountability they had—filing a malpractice claim under the 2020 Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act, a law created to give active-duty service members and their families a voice when medical negligence occurs. In Maria’s case, that negligence wasn’t a single oversight—it was a cascade of systemic failures: a high-risk cancer misclassified as routine, urgent diagnostic imaging delayed for months, unmistakable symptoms dismissed as mental illness, and red flags ignored by a medical bureaucracy that never escalated her care. These were not just errors in judgment—they were preventable lapses that allowed a curable disease to become terminal.

Maria died in December 2021—just one month after the claim was submitted.

The Department of Defense denied it.

The Department of Defense cited the statute of limitations, choosing the earliest possible date of harm—the day Maria’s MRI was first requested—rather than the date she was actually diagnosed.

This decision matters.

By selecting the earliest possible date, the DoD ignored the reality of Maria’s case: she didn’t know the extent of the harm yet. Her cancer hadn’t been diagnosed, let alone explained to her. In medical malpractice law, especially in cases involving delayed diagnosis, the clock is often based on when the patient discovers the injury—not when the error technically occurred.

Choosing the initial MRI request date was not just legally avoidable—it was strategic. It allowed the Department to declare her family’s claim “too late,” despite the fact that Maria was still actively seeking care, still serving on active duty, and still unaware of the fatal disease progressing inside her.

They also failed to honor 50 U.S.C. § 3936, a federal law that pauses legal deadlines while a service member is on active duty. Maria served her country the entire time.

“She didn’t miss the deadline,” said David P. Sheldon, the attorney representing Maria’s family. “The system chose to pretend she did. This case is about more than delay, it’s about denial. Denial of care. Denial of responsibility. Denial of justice.”

The injustice didn’t end with her death.

Maria’s family was also denied the full life insurance (SGLI) she was entitled to. At one point, during the course of her care, she was reportedly advised to reduce her coverage, a decision made while she was undiagnosed and in emotional distress. Her parents are now fighting to restore those benefits and demand acknowledgment from the Defense Department that what happened to Maria was wrong.

But Maria’s story is not an isolated tragedy.

At the same clinic where Maria sought care, two other enlisted soldiers were misdiagnosed around the same time, one with an undetected lymphoma, the other with a life-threatening cardiac condition. All three were enlisted. All three were initially dismissed.

“I was once enlisted too,” said the same physician from WBAMC. “And I’ve seen it: when a Private walks in with pain, people roll their eyes. But when a Colonel comes in, we call in all the consults. Maria wasn’t the exception. She was just the one who didn’t survive.”

Data backs these experiences. A 2024 Science study analyzing 1.5 million military emergency room visits found that lower-ranking service members received less clinical attention than higher-ranking officers. The same study reported that white doctors exerted less effort when treating Black patients, a bias only partly mitigated by rank.

Enlisted service members, particularly those from minority or disadvantaged backgrounds, face an uphill battle for equitable care. In many clinics, they first see medics or mid-level providers like PAs, many of whom carry overwhelming patient loads. Some never reach a board-certified physician unless they make it to the ER.

In the end, Maria’s cancer wasn’t what killed her. It was the delays, the misdiagnoses, and the indifference. Had she received a timely diagnostic workup in early 2019, her doctors estimate she would have had a 98% chance of survival. Instead, her cancer was allowed to spread unchecked. She lived just 26 months after her diagnosis.

Now, her case is being cited in policy circles, from media outlets to academic forums, as a call to reform military medical malpractice procedures and close the care gap between officers and enlisted.

The family, alongside advocates, is urging Congress to:

  • Enforce the tolling of deadlines under 50 U.S.C. § 3936
  • Default to the “date of discovery” in malpractice cases involving progressive disease
  • Allow for judicial review for denied claims
  • Mandate transparency in claims process
  • Ensure all members have access to competent medical care
  • Protect medical whistleblowers within the military system

“She did everything right,” said the same doctor who treated her above, a former enlisted Soldier “She followed orders, reported symptoms, and trusted the system. And she died because no one listened.”

Maria’s case was heard on April 24, 2025, by an Appeals Board that reviewed the Army’s denial of her claim. A decision will be announced in May.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., is a national leader in military and federal litigation. With decades of experience representing service members across all branches, the firm is dedicated to upholding the rights of those who serve—including in cases of medical malpractice, courts-martial defense, retirement appeals, and constitutional claims. For more information, visit www.militarydefense.com.

Legal Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Please consult a qualified attorney for advice specific to your situation.

Contact

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
militarydefense.com | (202) 546-9575

 

Resources and References

Legal Statutes

  • U.S. Code § 2733a – Medical Malpractice Claims by Members of the Uniformed Services
    Medical Malpractice Claims
    ecfr.gov  Part 45—Medical Malpractice Claims by Members of the Uniformed Services
  • 10 USC 2733a: Medical malpractice claims by members of the uniformed services Text contains those laws in effect on April 21, 2025
  • Servicemembers Civil Relief Act – 50 U.S.C. § 3936 (Statute of Limitations) Research & Reports