Author: Becky Haugen

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Image adapted from the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS), U.S. Department of Defense, 2013 DACOWITS Report (public domain).

OPINION: Silencing Women in Service Weakens America’s Strength

By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

A Step Backward

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth’s decision to shut down the Defense Advisory Committee on Women in the Services (DACOWITS) is not just about ending an advisory group. It is part of a broader push to reshape the image of the military under a narrow “warrior ethos.” In doing so, it risks violating the rights of service members and weakening national security.

For nearly 75 years, DACOWITS gave women in uniform a voice inside the Pentagon, flagging problems with equipment, training, health care, and readiness. Its closure silences that voice. Even more troubling, it signals a willingness to roll back decades of progress where women have earned the right, through law and sacrifice, to serve in every capacity, including combat.

And this was not theoretical progress. DACOWITS directly shaped the military’s ability to function effectively. As of 2025, approximately 94% of DACOWITS recommendations have been either fully or partially adopted by the Department of Defense since its creation in 1951. Those changes, from equipment design to personnel policies, had real, measurable impacts on readiness and national security. Closing the committee risks losing a proven engine of reform.

The Legal Reality

Hegseth does not have the legal power to remove women from combat or other positions simply because of their sex. Congress repealed combat-exclusion laws years ago, and the Supreme Court has made clear that discrimination based on gender requires an “exceedingly persuasive justification.” Any attempt to bar women would trigger immediate lawsuits and constitutional challenges under the Fifth Amendment’s equal-protection guarantee.

Uniformed service members—whether Army, Navy, Space Force, NOAA, or the U.S. Public Health Service—fall under Title 10. That means their rights are protected by federal law, and any blanket policy to exclude them based on sex would be unlawful.

Security Consequences

This is more than a legal fight. Removing women from full participation in service threatens national security. Research consistently shows that diverse teams perform better, especially in complex missions overseas and at home. By closing down advisory committees and silencing voices, the Pentagon narrows its talent pool at a time when recruiting and retention are already at crisis levels.

For non-armed services like the USPHS and NOAA, which often deploy alongside the military in disaster zones or global health missions, the chilling effect is real. Labeling inclusion efforts as “woke” undermines critical coordination and risks sidelining officers who are already vital to national response efforts.

A Dangerous Precedent

Beyond the issue of gender, the new directive restricting service members’ ability to speak at outside events and panels further shortens the lines of communication between the Pentagon and the public. When commanders control not just operations but also outside speech, transparency suffers. Service members—military, federal, or Tribal—are left with fewer avenues to raise concerns, seek reforms, or expose wrongdoing.

The Path Forward

Commanders and service members who find themselves targeted by discriminatory policies are not without recourse. They can:

  • File Equal Opportunity complaints
  • Pursue Inspector General investigations
  • Petition their respective Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records (ABCMR, BCNR, etc.)
  • Seek judicial review where appropriate

Our firm stands ready to defend these rights. Title 10 protections apply across the spectrum of uniformed service, and no secretary can erase them by memo.

Conclusion

Rolling back opportunities for women under the guise of “readiness” is both unlawful and unwise. America is strongest when all who are willing and able to serve are judged on merit, not gender. Shuttering transparency and silencing voices threatens readiness, justice, and the very values the military and federal service are sworn to uphold.

References, Resources & Citations

  • Politico, Hegseth shutters Pentagon women’s advisory group, clamps down on outside appearances (Sept. 2025) Politico
  • Hegseth dissolves women’s military committee over ‘divisive feminist agenda’ (The Guardian, Sept 23 2025) The Guardian
  • Hegseth ‘proudly’ terminates Women, Peace, and Security program supported by Trump (Washington Post, Apr 2025) Center for Strategic and International Studies, Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 and DoD Implementation (2017–2024 reports) Washington Post
  • Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security (GIWPS), commentary on WPS strategy rollbacks (2025) GIWPS
  • Department of Homeland Security Report on the Implementation of the Women, Peace, and Security (WPS) Act (2022) DHS
  • Department of State Implementation Plan for the U.S. Strategy on Women, Peace, and Security Department of State
  • Women, Peace and Security: Strategic Framework and Implementation Plan (DoD, 2020) Policy Brief
  • Women, Peace, and Security Act of 2017 (Public Law 115-68) Congress
  • DACOWITS Annual Reports to the Secretary of Defense (archival, 1951–2024) DACOWITS
  • Title 10, U.S. Code, governing armed and uniformed services Cornell
  • Department of Defense Inspector General and GAO reports on military recruiting and readiness (2023–2025) GAO Readiness Reports

 

Army Veteran Wins Medical Retirement After Long Fight for Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

After fighting for over 10 years an army veteran gets justice

After more than a decade of pain, appeals, and repeated denials, a U.S. Army veteran has finally secured justice. On September 12, 2025, following a formal hearing before the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), the Board recognized what years of medical evidence had already made clear: the veteran’s combat-related injuries rendered him unfit for service and entitled him to a medical retirement.

This decision marks the end of a grueling journey that began with a Humvee accident in Iraq in 2008, where the soldier sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple orthopedic injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Rather than receiving the disability evaluation process required by Army regulations, he was left in limbo for years on temporary medical profiles, eventually separated at the end of his service contract in 2011 without the medical retirement he deserved. Despite his documented conditions, which later earned him a 100% permanent and total disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Army refused to grant him retirement benefits. For over a decade, he fought through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records and multiple PEB reviews, compiling an extensive record of medical evidence, VA ratings, and legal arguments to prove what should have been recognized years ago, that he was permanently unfit for service. The member even filed suit in District Court, obtaining a remand, which led to his ultimate victory.

“This case demonstrates the perseverance of a soldier who refused to let bureaucracy erase his sacrifice,” said Attorney Dylan Thayer, who represented the veteran. “Our client gave everything for his country, and after years of struggle, the system has finally acknowledged that he was entitled to a medical retirement from the very beginning. It is an honor to stand by him in securing this result.”

The Board’s decision not only restores the veteran’s dignity but also grants him critical benefits, including retirement pay, health care, and backdated entitlements. It sends a broader message that service members should not have to fight for years to obtain the care and recognition that the law already promises them.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents U.S. service members, veterans, and federal employees in military and federal employment law matters, including courts-martial defense, PEB/MEB representation, ABCMR appeals, and security clearance defense. The firm is dedicated to correcting injustices and protecting the rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Overturns Airman’s Conviction; Restores Honor and Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC announced today a significant victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which unanimously reversed the wrongful conviction of an Airman wrongfully convicted of cocaine use.  The unanimous decision found that prosecutors had wrongfully failed to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.

This decision likely secures more than three years of back pay and allowances for the Airman and, most importantly, removes his criminal conviction, ensuring he will be honorably discharged.

From Injustice to Vindication

The young Airman faced a devastating court-martial conviction in 2021 at Little Rock Air Force Base after the government withheld and destroyed critical evidence that could have exonerated him. While one of his co-accused was acquitted and another not even charged, the Airman was left with a court martial conviction, “bad paper” discharge, denied appellate review, and forced to rebuild his life working at a Home Depot.

After his initial Article 69 petition was denied, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC took the case pro bono. When the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan, argued the appeal before the CAAF in Spring of 2025.

This morning, the CAAF issued its unanimous decision, ruling that the lower court erred in dismissing withheld exculpatory evidence, a clear violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Court found the government’s destruction of investigative files and failure to disclose evidence fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial.

A Voice for All Service Members

“This case reaffirms that every service member, no matter their rank, deserves a fair trial,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “Our client stood alone for years, but today the Court has restored his honor and ensured that justice prevails.”

Case Impact

The Court set aside both the findings and the sentence, underscoring that suppressed evidence of potential innocent ingestion and investigative misconduct should have been disclosed.

This ruling strengthens due-process protections across the armed forces and sends a clear message that the government must honor its constitutional discovery obligations.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm representing military service members, federal employees, and veterans. With a focus on courts-martial defense, medical retirement boards, and appeals before military and federal courts, the firm is committed to safeguarding the rights, careers, and honor of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No attorney-client relationship is created by this announcement.

 

Army Chaplain Files New ABCMR Petition Following Court Victory

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army Chaplain Fights for Justice

A Step Forward in Restoring Honor and Correcting Injustice

An Army Chaplain has filed a new application with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seeking the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from her official record. This filing follows her decisive federal court victory earlier this summer, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Army’s prior refusal to grant relief was “arbitrary and capricious” and remanded her case to the Board

A Career of Service, a Battle for Justice

The Chaplain’s story is one of resilience, faith, and dedication to the soldiers she served. After joining active duty in 2016, she rose to become a Battalion Chaplain in the 101st Airborne Division. Her record included consistent high marks for performance and leadership, along with deep personal commitments to the spiritual and moral well-being of her troops

In 2022, following an administrative dispute with a subordinate soldier, she received a GOMOR. While the Army initially attempted to end her career, a Board of Inquiry later determined she should be retained, recognizing that her conduct did not rise to the level of separation. Even so, the reprimand remained in her permanent record, a stain that hindered her advancement despite subsequent “highly qualified” evaluations and strong endorsements from peers and leaders

In February 2024, the ABCMR itself unanimously recommended removing the reprimand, citing her remorse, strong performance, and the unfair severity of the GOMOR. But in April 2024, that recommendation was overturned by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. The Chaplain challenged the decision in federal court, and on July 14, 2025, the District Court sided with her, ordering the case returned to the Board for proper reconsideration

Moving the Ball Forward

Now, with her latest ABCMR filing, the Chaplain is seeking to finish what began three years ago: the full restoration of her record and her honor.

“This case is about more than one reprimand,” said her attorney, Dylan Thayer, of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “It is about ensuring that a decorated chaplain’s career is not defined by an isolated incident, especially after she has demonstrated unwavering integrity, remorse, and continued excellence in service.”

For the Chaplain, the filing is not simply about personal vindication. It is about correcting the record so that her service is remembered for what it truly is faithful, compassionate, and dedicated to the soldiers she was called to serve.

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 its representation of service members, veterans, and federal employees. The firm has extensive experience in military law, corrections of military records, courts-martial defense, and federal employment litigation.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Army Officer Files for Correction of Military Records After Career-Ending Injustice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army Commander Files for Correction of Records

Attorney Dylan Thayer of The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC filed a petition on behalf of a former U.S. Army officer, seeking long-overdue correction of her military records. The filing alleges that administrative delays, wrongful documentation, and unjust proceedings led directly to the premature end of the officer’s Army career.

The case centers on the Army’s mishandling of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) issued in 2017. Although the officer accepted responsibility and demonstrated years of exemplary service afterward, including letters of support from commanding officers and strong performance reviews, her record was never corrected in time to prevent an unfair separation. Even the issuing general later confirmed that the reprimand had “served its intended purpose” and should have been removed.

Despite this, bureaucratic delays allowed the reprimand to influence promotion and retention boards, effectively ending the officer’s military service in 2021. The filing argues that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records must now grant relief, including reinstatement, retroactive promotion consideration, and the removal of the unjust reprimand.

“This case is about fairness, justice, and the Army’s duty to uphold its own regulations,” said Dylan Thayer, counsel for the officer. “Our client gave years of honorable service and demonstrated rehabilitation, yet her career was cut short by administrative errors that the Army itself acknowledged were unjust.”

The petition also details the severe toll the separation has taken on the officer’s mental health, including treatment for post-traumatic stress disorder, anxiety, and depression. Advocates argue that correcting her record is not only required by law but essential to restoring the integrity of the Army’s personnel system.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, medical boards, security clearance actions, and corrections of military records. With decades of experience, the firm is committed to protecting the rights and careers of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship with the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

Privacy and Power: National Guard Protections Under the Privacy Act Remain Vital in Today’s Environment

Posted on by Becky Haugen
Federalizing the Reserves
Photo By Tech. Sgt. Andrew Enriquez –
This image was released by the United States National Guard with the ID 250815-Z-EZ983-1008

In 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals confronted a seemingly technical, but critically important question: Does the Privacy Act protect members of federally recognized National Guard units when they are not on active federal duty?

The case, In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251 (D.C. Cir. 2009), involved a Vermont Army National Guard member whose sensitive personal information was improperly disclosed. Represented by David P. Sheldon, the appellant challenged the government’s attempt to carve out the National Guard from the Privacy Act’s protections whenever guardsmen were not on federal activation orders.

The government argued that state Guard units, when not federalized, were “state entities” beyond the Privacy Act. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory structure of Title 10 and the Privacy Act compelled the opposite conclusion: a National Guard unit is always part of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), which in turn is a reserve component of the Department of the Army, a “military department” expressly covered by the Privacy Act.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Concurrence

The panel opinion was authored by Judge David Tatel, with a separate concurring opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but emphasized a streamlined statutory approach. He underscored that the Department of the Army is plainly an “agency” under the Privacy Act and that federally recognized Guard units, by definition, fall under the Army’s umbrella. His concurrence dismissed attempts to overcomplicate the statutory analysis, warning that Congress had already spoken clearly: Guard units federally recognized under Title 10 remain tied to the Army’s command structure and thus remain subject to federal obligations under the Privacy Act.

David P. Sheldon’s Argument

In oral and written arguments, David P. Sheldon advanced the principle that privacy protections must travel with the soldier, regardless of whether a Guard unit is under state or federal command. “The dignity of service members requires no less than full protection of their private information, whether they are standing guard at home or serving abroad,” Sheldon argued in the case.

That position carried the day, shaping precedent for thousands of Guard members across the nation.

Why It Matters Today

The reasoning in In re Sealed Case resonates even more strongly in the present environment:

  1. Expanded Federal Utilization of the Guard.  Guard units are increasingly activated for missions that blur federal and state roles—border enforcement, pandemic response, natural disaster relief, and civil unrest. Their entwinement with federal operations makes the distinction between “state” and “federal” duty even less meaningful. Kavanaugh’s statutory reading—that federally recognized units are always part of ARNGUS—fits today’s operational realities.
  2. Growing Data Vulnerabilities.  With AI systems, electronic health records, and broad interagency data sharing, the risk of wrongful disclosure or algorithmic error in Guard members’ personal information has grown exponentially. The Privacy Act, designed to check exactly these risks, must remain robust.
  3. Current Administration’s Military Policies.  Recent administrations, including the current one, have leaned heavily on Guard forces for politically sensitive missions. Attempts to sidestep federal accountability by pointing to “state status” would threaten Guard members’ rights at precisely the moment they need federal protection most.

Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s 2009 decision, argued by David P. Sheldon and joined in judgment by Judge Brett Kavanaugh remains good law. Its logic has only gained strength. The Privacy Act applies to the National Guard not as a matter of policy preference, but because Congress has mandated it. In an age of unprecedented reliance on the Guard and unprecedented risks to personal data, this precedent serves as a vital safeguard for those who serve.

References & Resources

  • In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251, 551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2009). govinfo.gov 
  • Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).  Justia USSC
  • Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Justice.gov
  • Title 10, U.S. Code §§ 101(a)(6), 10101, 10105, 10106, 10107. govinfo.gov
  • Army Regulation 340-21, The Army Privacy Program. Download
  • Defense Privacy Board, Applicability of the Privacy Act to National Guard Records (1992). PCLT

Disclaimer

This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Service members and federal employees facing Privacy Act or related issues should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

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 recognized firm dedicated to defending the rights of service members, federal employees, and veterans. From courts-martial to federal employment disputes, medical retirement cases, and Privacy Act litigation, our attorneys combine deep knowledge of military and federal law with an unwavering commitment to justice.

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet — New Analysis From USNI

Posted on by Becky Haugen
Full analysis on DOD Bombing of Valenzuelan Drug TrafficOn 2 September 2025, the U.S. military carried out a precision strike against
a suspected drug-smuggling vessel. (Department of Defense)

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet — New Analysis From USNI


Delve into the intricate intersection of maritime law enforcement and lethal force in “Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet.” Co-authored by Annie Morgan, a Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC, this thoughtful examination draws on Annie’s distinguished background—including appearances before the War Courts at Guantánamo Bay, the Court of Military Commissions Review, and the D.C. Circuit.


Together, the article navigates the thorny legal terrain surrounding drug interdiction by sea, weighing the consequences of policy, precedent, and power. Insightful, timely, indispensable.


Read the full article

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet
By Annie W. Morgan, Esq. and James Halsell
September 2025
Proceedings
Vol. 151/9/1,471

 

Air Force Veteran Wins Long-Fought Battle to Restore Her Honorable Service

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Airforce Image of Uniforms

After nearly a decade of fighting to correct an injustice, a former Airman Basic has finally succeeded in having her military discharge upgraded to “Honorable.”

The Airmen enlisted in the U.S. Air Force in 2012, where she excelled serving in Germany supporting Patriot Express missions. Her career trajectory shifted, however, after a transfer stateside in 2015. There she endured domestic abuse at the hands of her spouse and faced a devastating lack of support from her chain of command. Instead of receiving protection, the Airman was pushed into marital counseling that worsened her trauma.  The abuse, combined with untreated medical issues, led to severe sleep disorders and adjustment disorder with depression. These conditions caused her to be late for work on multiple occasions, incidents her command labeled as “misconduct (minor infractions).” She was separated with a “General” discharge, stripping her of the full recognition and benefits.

Despite this, the Airman never gave up. She built a successful civilian career, proving that the issues she faced were rooted in circumstances beyond her control—not a lack of dedication or ability. She then pursued every available appeal, courageously telling her story to military review boards even after initial denials.

On May 29, 2025, the Air Force Discharge Review Board voted to correct the injustice. The Board found her prior characterization inequitable, upgrading her discharge to Honorable, changing her narrative reason to Secretarial Authority, and revising her reentry code.

“She carried this stigma for years, but knew her service was honorable,” according to her attorney< David P. Sheldon, who represented her before the Board. “This upgrade means the record finally reflects the truth.”

Her persistence not only restores her dignity but also highlights how survivors of abuse and trauma within the ranks are too often punished instead of supported.

The case was part of the Johnson et al. v. Kendall class action settlement, which required the Air Force to review thousands of discharges under more compassionate standards of equity and clemency

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents service members, veterans, and federal employees nationwide. The firm is dedicated to ensuring fairness in military justice, protecting veterans’ rights, and correcting injustices in service records.

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.

Oral Argument in Dudt v. Driscoll Before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Navy Commander Files Suit against Federal Government for Benefits

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Presents Oral Argument in Dudt v. Driscoll Before the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals

Washington, D.C., September 4, 2025 — The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC appeared before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit today in the case of Andrew Dudt v. Daniel Driscoll, Secretary of the Army (No. 24-5084).

Attorney Dylan Thayer argued on behalf of Major Andrew Dudt, U.S. Army, challenging the Army’s decision-making process and raising critical issues of procedural fairness, due process, and regulatory consistency. Representing the Army, the U.S. Department of Justice appeared through counsel Bradley Silverman.

The case was heard by Circuit Judges Rao and Walker, and Senior Circuit Judge Randolph. The panel pressed both sides on how military authorities apply and interpret regulations in disciplinary and administrative matters that affect service members’ careers, reputations, and futures.

This case underscores the high stakes faced by service members when adverse administrative actions are taken without proper safeguards. The outcome of this appeal could set precedent for how military regulations are reviewed in federal courts and how due process rights are upheld for service members nationwide.

“Our argument before the D.C. Circuit today is about fairness and accountability,” said Dylan Thayer, attorney for the appellant. “Major Dudt, like all service members, deserves decisions made under consistent rules and with full respect for his rights. We are confident that the Court understands the gravity of what is at stake—not just for our client, but for others serving in uniform.”

The Court’s decision, expected in the coming months, could provide important guidance for both service members and military authorities in the interpretation and enforcement of regulations.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents service members, veterans, and federal employees in high-stakes litigation. With extensive experience in military defense and federal appeals, the firm is dedicated to ensuring fairness, accountability, and justice for those who serve our nation.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.