Author: Becky Haugen

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

VA Disability Calculator Errors and Supreme Court Ruling Put Veterans’ Ratings at Risk

Posted on by Becky Haugen

This year, veterans across the country were surprised to learn that the VA’s online disability calculator, something many rely on to estimate benefits has been giving incorrect results. A recent report by Stars and Stripes revealed that flaws in the system may have caused veterans to receive the wrong combined disability rating. That could mean thousands of dollars in lost compensation for those affected.

The VA acknowledged the issue but hasn’t announced a system-wide fix to correct the miscalculations. This is deeply troubling, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that makes it harder than ever to fix these mistakes after the fact.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough, 601 U.S. ___ (2025). The Court decided that VA decisions can only be overturned if they meet the extremely high bar of a “clear and unmistakable error,” also known as a CUE. That means even if the VA made a mistake in calculating your disability rating, you can’t just appeal the decision unless you can prove it was obviously and unquestionably wrong.

You can read the Supreme Court’s docket entry here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/23-713/

The recent problem with the calculator combined with this ruling puts the burden entirely on the veteran. You must now catch and fix rating errors early, before the VA finalizes its decision. Once your claim is denied or granted with the wrong rating, you may have little to no recourse.

Why is this so important? Your VA disability rating affects not only your monthly tax-free payments but also your access to healthcare, housing programs, education benefits, and your eligibility for military retirement benefits. For example, the difference between a 90% and a 100% rating can amount to more than $1,000 per month and over a lifetime, this can mean tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

Now more than ever, legal experts urge veterans, service members, and federal employees to take action to ensure their ratings are accurate. First, request a full copy of your VA claims file, also known as a C-file. This file includes all documents used to decide your case. Review your medical ratings, award letters, and the VA’s decision explanation. This is your first line of defense.

Next, don’t rely on the VA’s online tools. Use trusted independent resources like https://www.dav.org/disability-calculator to double-check how your disabilities were combined. VA math uses a formula that isn’t simple addition, and errors in the calculator have already affected many veterans.

If you find an error in your rating or award decision, you should file a correction immediately. Veterans can submit a Supplemental Claim using VA Form 20-0995, which is available online at: https://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-20-0995-ARE.pdf  The earlier you act, the more options you will have. Waiting too long can result in permanent loss of benefits.

Finally, consider seeking legal support. A VA-accredited attorney or representative can review your case, help you gather supporting evidence, and ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete before you submit it. Under the Supreme Court’s Bufkin decision, the window for correcting errors is now narrower than ever before.

As Attorney David P. Sheldon explains, “If you’re a veteran relying on a rating from the VA’s calculator, now is the time to double-check everything. Because under Bufkin, even honest mistakes might not be fixable after the fact.”

The takeaway is clear: every veteran must now approach their initial disability claim as if it’s their only chance to get it right. The legal system is no longer positioned to correct missteps made along the way, even when those missteps aren’t your fault.

For additional information on how the VA processes appeals and claim reviews, visit https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/. For independent help from a nonprofit, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program offers free legal assistance to qualifying veterans at https://vetsprobono.org.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, we are a nationally recognized law firm focused on protecting the rights of military service members, veterans, and federal employees. We help clients fight unjust discharges, benefit denials, security clearance revocations, and more.

Contact the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC  https://militarydefense.com

Disclaimer
This educational post does not constitute legal advice. Every claim and rating situation is unique. Veterans are encouraged to speak with a qualified attorney to review their individual cases.

Army Veteran Seeks Purple Heart, Combat Action Badge, and Medical Retirement in High-Stakes Legal Remand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated Army sergeant wounded in combat and medically separated with only partial recognition of his injuries is seeking long-overdue justice through a remand application now before the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR). The veteran, who served two combat tours during Operation Iraqi Freedom, has petitioned for the correction of his military records to include a full medical retirement, retroactive award of the Purple Heart and Combat Action Badge, and all associated benefits.

The filing follows a recent Order by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which, on May 6, 2025, remanded the sergeant’s case back to the ABCMR for reconsideration. The Court acted on a joint motion between the veteran and the Secretary of the Army, acknowledging serious questions about the Army’s prior denials of relief.

Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the veteran argues that the Army failed to recognize or adequately rate multiple combat-related injuries, despite clear evidence of wounds sustained during enemy engagements, traumatic brain injuries (TBI), post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and exposure to toxic burn pits.

“This remand is not just an opportunity to revisit the record, it’s a second chance to deliver long-denied recognition and justice to a soldier who risked everything for his country,” said Thayer. “The failure to properly document and award combat-related injuries continues to be a systemic issue that disproportionately affects those who served in high-risk environments without the benefit of thorough or consistent record-keeping.”

The veteran’s petition details incidents including a stabbing by an Iraqi combatant, repeated blast exposures, and a severe knee injury, as well as psychological trauma documented by the Department of Veterans Affairs as service-connected. Despite these facts, the veteran received only a 10% disability rating upon separation and was denied the awards that would typically accompany such injuries under Army Regulation 600-8-22.

The filing also invokes the “liberal consideration” standard under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h), which requires that claims involving PTSD or TBI related to combat be reviewed with deference to the service member’s experience and credible evidence.

Thayer added, “If this veteran had remained with his original unit a few months longer, he likely would have received the Combat Action Badge when it was retroactively issued. The only thing that separated him from eligibility was paperwork, not merit or service.”

The ABCMR is now tasked with reconsidering the veteran’s application in light of the Court’s order, new medical evidence, and expert findings. A favorable ruling could result in back pay, a corrected discharge status, and permanent disability retirement, a rare but vital remedy for service members whose sacrifices have been overlooked.

 

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented service members, veterans, and federal employees across all branches of the armed forces in matters involving courts-martial, security clearance appeals, military record corrections, medical retirement, and whistleblower protections. With decades of experience and a reputation for aggressive and principled advocacy, the firm is committed to defending the constitutional and statutory rights of those who serve.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
(202) 546-9575
lhttps://militarydefense.com

 

DISCLAIMER:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC does not represent the individual named in the remand application unless otherwise stated. Statements made herein are based on publicly filed legal documents and do not reveal confidential client information.

 

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Obedience Becomes a Crime: The Military Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Obedience in Uniform Has Limits

Military personnel are bound by duty, discipline, and the chain of command. But that duty does not extend to illegal actions. Under both U.S. military law and international standards, service members are legally required to refuse unlawful orders—a point often overlooked in public discourse and sometimes misunderstood within the ranks.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we’ve stood beside clients worldwide who’ve had the courage to disobey in defense of justice and the Constitution. This article explores the legal, ethical, and historical foundations of the duty to refuse unlawful orders—and what protections exist for those who do.

What Is an Unlawful Order?

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.

An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.

Examples of Unlawful Orders:

  • Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
  • Torturing or abusing detainees
  • Falsifying operational or legal records
  • Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions

Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.

Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).

According to Army Field Manual 27-10:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible.”

Historical and Legal Precedents

  1. Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

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

  1. Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Held a commanding officer accountable for crimes committed by subordinates—introducing the doctrine of command responsibility. (Read the case)

  1. United States v. Calley (My Lai Massacre)

Calley’s conviction showed that carrying out manifestly illegal orders—even in combat—results in individual accountability. (U.S. Army analysis)

  1. Lt. Ehren Watada (2006)

Refused deployment to Iraq, arguing that the war was illegal. Although his case ended in a mistrial, it reignited public debate on conscience versus command.  Case overview

Ethics in Action: The Burden of Moral Courage

Military obedience does not require blind loyalty. Orders carry the presumption of legality, but that presumption is rebuttable—especially when the order is clearly illegal on its face. Recognizing an unlawful order is often difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations. Still, ethical training and operational awareness are designed to support service members in making these critical decisions.

Protections for Service Members Who Speak Up

Disobeying an unlawful order may save lives, protect the Constitution, and uphold international law—but it can also put a service member at risk of retaliation, adverse career action, or criminal charges.

Key Legal Protections:

  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act
    Protects service members who report violations of law or abuse of authority.
    10 U.S. Code § 1034
  • MEB/PEB Appeals and Administrative Relief
    If a service member is wrongfully discharged or medically separated in retaliation, legal remedies may be pursued through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Can Help

We represent service members in all branches of the armed forces—worldwide. From courts-martial and boards of inquiry to whistleblower defense and medical discharge litigation, we know how to challenge wrongful actions at every level of military command.

If you’ve been threatened, punished, or silenced for refusing an unlawful order—or for reporting one—you are not alone. And your rights deserve to be defended.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense firm representing active duty, reserve, and retired service members in courts-martial, MEB/PEB proceedings, security clearance matters, administrative separation, and federal court appeals. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to protecting those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com

Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

 

References & Citations

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is fact-specific. If you are facing a legal issue related to military justice or command authority, you should speak with a qualified and licensed military law attorney.

Memorial Day: A Legacy of Honor, A Nation’s Promise

Posted on by Becky Haugen

 

Flag with Soldiers boots
Image of Soldiers Boots in Memory of their Sacrifice.
Photo Taken by David at Schofield Barracks, 25th Infantry Division,”Tropical Lightening”, Memorial Day (2019)

Born from the ashes of the Civil War, Memorial Day began as a solemn tribute to the countless Union and Confederate soldiers who perished on American soil. First known as Decoration Day, families would gather to adorn the graves of the fallen with flowers, flags, and prayers, an act not of politics, but of remembrance. It was a sacred ritual of healing for a fractured nation.

Over a century later, the tradition endures. Memorial Day is no longer about North or South. It is about sacrifice, service, and the silent rows of headstones that stretch across Arlington, Normandy, and beyond. It is about every soldier who laid down their life in defense of a nation they believed in, even when that belief demanded the ultimate price.

As a law firm dedicated to defending the rights of those who wear the uniform, we know the fight does not end at the battlefield. We honor the fallen by standing with the living, ensuring service members, veterans, and their families receive the justice and dignity they have earned.

This weekend, may we all pause not only to remember, but to renew our collective promise: that these sacrifices will not be forgotten, and that our freedoms will never be taken for granted.

Let us honor their sacrifice by serving those who continue to wear the uniform.

Former Navy Member Appeals Federal Ruling in Disability Benefits Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Court Asked to Reconsider Standards Used to Deny Full Medical Retirement

A former Navy service member has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld the Department of the Navy’s disability benefits determination, arguing that the decision was contrary to statutory protections and unsupported by the administrative record. The appeal, filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the standards and methodology used by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) in assigning a 10% permanent disability rating—far below the threshold required for retirement benefits.

The appeal raises significant questions about how the military adjudicates disability claims involving mental health conditions, particularly Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) linked to combat-related service. The case centers on whether the PDBR misapplied regulatory guidance—specifically the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) § 4.129 and § 4.130—and whether it provided adequate justification for diverging from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ prior 30% disability rating.

According to court records, the appellant had served as a sensor operator involved in combat missions and was later diagnosed with PTSD. Despite this, the Navy separated the service member with a disability rating below the 30% threshold that would have guaranteed medical retirement and long-term benefits. A retroactive review by the PDBR provided temporary retirement benefits for a six-month window but ultimately affirmed the original 10% rating—an outcome the appellant contends is both legally flawed and medically unjust.

The appeal asserts that the PDBR failed to account for relevant medical evidence, improperly minimized symptoms of psychological trauma, and acted in conflict with governing Department of Defense policies that require minimum ratings for combat-related mental health conditions.

Attorneys from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represent the appellant, seek reversal of the lower court’s judgment and a remand for proper reconsideration under the Administrative Procedure Act.

ABOUT THE LAW FIRM

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for its expertise in military and federal litigation. The firm advocates for service members and federal employees in matters involving courts-martial, discharge upgrades, medical retirement, and administrative appeals.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the facts, law, and procedural posture of the case.

Medical Privacy Weaponized: The Pentagon Targets Transgender Troops

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In a move that has stunned civil rights advocates and service members alike, the Department of Defense has authorized the targeting of transgender troops using their own medical records. This isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a constitutional test. It marks a chilling moment where private health data is no longer a matter of care or protection, but a trigger for discharge, exclusion, and potential ruin.

The scope may appear narrow—focused only on service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria—but the implications are sweeping. If a subset of Americans in uniform can be expelled based on medical documentation tied to identity, what stops the next policy from targeting mental health diagnoses, reproductive history, or other protected medical categories?

This is more than a rollback of progress—it’s a blueprint for how bureaucracies can systemically isolate, stigmatize, and expel a population through paper trails. When records become tools of removal, no one is safe from being next.

At its core, this policy is a test:

  • A test of how far executive authority can go in overriding equality.
  • A test of whether health privacy exists at all in the armed forces.
  • A test of America’s promise to treat all who serve with dignity—regardless of gender, identity, or diagnosis.

The question is no longer “Who will be affected?”
It’s “Who’s watching—and who will be next?”

The Policy: Medical Records as a Tool of Separation

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in May 2025 that allowed the Trump administration’s transgender military ban to take effect pending litigation, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum through Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The memo directs the involuntary discharge of transgender service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria unless they voluntarily separate by June 6. Notably, the Pentagon is not relying on self-reporting—it is actively reviewing medical records to identify individuals, even if they have not publicly disclosed their identity.

This marks an unprecedented expansion of military surveillance into private health documentation as a means of enforcing exclusion.

Legal Violations: Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privacy

While military medical records operate under different rules than civilian care (HIPAA protections are limited in uniformed service), that does not mean there are no ethical or legal boundaries.

The new policy arguably violates:

  • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by targeting a protected class based solely on diagnosis tied to identity.
  • The Due Process Clause, by initiating discharge procedures without clear avenues for challenge or individualized assessment.
  • The principles of medical confidentiality, which are foundational even in the structured environment of military service.

Legal organizations including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU are mounting constitutional challenges, arguing that this discriminatory use of medical files weaponizes health data and violates civil liberties.

The Human Cost: Service, Sacrifice, and Systemic Exclusion

The real consequences extend far beyond legal theory.

For thousands of transgender troops—many of whom have served honorably through multiple administrations—this means career termination, loss of pensions and VA benefits, housing instability, and the erasure of hard-earned dignity.

This is not an issue of readiness, misconduct, or mission effectiveness. It is an issue of identity being treated as disqualifying.

What happens when medical diagnoses become the basis for separation, rather than support?

A Dangerous Precedent

If the government can discharge someone based on a medical file linked to gender identity today, it begs the question:
Could the same be done tomorrow based on mental health, reproductive history, PTSD, or other protected health conditions?

This policy opens the door to further abuse, creating a precedent where diagnosis equals discharge. That is incompatible with a professional military grounded in constitutional values and civil rights.

Sources and Further Reading:

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm representing military and federal employees across the country. We are committed to defending the constitutional rights of those who serve—regardless of identity, rank, or assignment. From wrongful discharge to discrimination and medical board challenges, we fight for justice on every front.

 Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a service member affected by this policy, contact a qualified attorney to discuss your rights and options.