Firm News Archives

When Jurisdiction Cannot Be Waived: Federal Court Filing Challenges Breakdown in Military Commission Appellate Review

Posted on March 18, 2026March 18, 2026 by Becky Haugen

A newly filed Reply to Show Cause in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit presses a question that goes to the core of constitutional structure and the rule of law: What happens when a court charged by Congress with mandatory review refuses to exercise it?

Filed by Annie W. Morgan, Senior Military Criminal Defense Attorney with Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the reply urges the Court to reject dismissal and allow review to proceed—not to relitigate the merits of a conviction, but to determine whether the Court of Military Commission Review (CMCR) lawfully declined to perform a review Congress expressly required.

At issue is a sharp but fundamental distinction. While a prior appellate decision enforced a forum-specific waiver of merits review in the D.C. Circuit, the current petition raises a different and antecedent question: whether jurisdictional obligations imposed by statute can be nullified by waiver at all.

The filing argues they cannot.

Congress, through the Military Commissions Act, directed that once a case is referred to the CMCR, that court shall review the entire record. The Reply explains that this mandate is not discretionary, not contingent, and not erased by an accused person’s waiver of review in a separate forum. Jurisdiction, the filing emphasizes, is structural. It belongs to Congress, not to litigants, not to prosecutors, and not to courts seeking to avoid review.

“This is not an effort to reopen a conviction,” the Reply makes clear. “It is an effort to ensure that the tribunal Congress created actually performed the review Congress required.”

The filing situates the issue within longstanding Supreme Court doctrine holding that subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be created or destroyed by waiver, agreement, or silence. It also warns that dismissing the petition would effectively read an entire statutory provision out of the law, collapsing a two-tier appellate system into a single, optional layer and undermining congressional design.

More broadly, the Reply frames the dispute as one of institutional accountability. When a court charged with mandatory review declines to act, and when no court is willing to ask whether that refusal was lawful, the structure meant to safeguard rights ceases to function. The filing argues that this is precisely the kind of “on-the-ground failure” that federal courts are obligated to address.

The Court is now asked to decide whether it will examine that failure—or allow a jurisdictional vacuum to stand.

Why This Filing Matters

Jurisdiction is not optional. Courts cannot waive away duties Congress imposed.
Mandatory review safeguards legitimacy. Plenary appellate review is not a technicality; it is a structural protection.
Waiver has limits. A waiver of merits review in one court does not nullify statutory obligations in another.
Rule-of-law implications extend beyond one case. The outcome affects how military commission review functions system-wide.

About the Firm

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.–based law firm representing military service members, federal employees, and civilians worldwide. The firm is nationally recognized for its work in courts-martial, military commission litigation, federal appellate advocacy, constitutional challenges, and complex jurisdictional disputes.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The content reflects allegations and legal arguments contained in a public court filing. No client identifying information is included.

Seeking Fairness After Service: AFBCMR Petition Challenges Unjust Record and Sentence Consequences

Posted on March 17, 2026 by Becky Haugen

A former United States Air Force officer has petitioned the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) to correct military records that continue to carry the weight of a flawed disciplinary outcome long after service to the nation ended.

The application asks the Board to confront a core question of military justice: what happens when punishment outlives fairness.

The petition details how administrative and sentencing actions-imposed years earlier produced lasting professional and personal harm that no longer reflect the service member’s actual conduct, rehabilitation, or record of post-service responsibility. The request seeks correction of records to remove or mitigate consequences that remain disproportionate to the underlying offense and inconsistent with constitutional due process, evolving military justice standards, and equity principles applied in similar cases.

This case is not about relitigating guilt. It is about whether the military’s permanent records should continue to impose penalties that the justice system itself has already recognized as excessive, procedurally flawed, or no longer warranted.

When a Sentence Never Ends

According to the filing, the service member completed all imposed punishment years ago. Yet collateral consequences embedded in official Air Force records have continued to follow them into civilian life, affecting employment prospects, reputation, and future opportunities for service and contribution.

The petition explains that sentencing errors and post-trial irregularities compounded the harm, including reliance on disciplinary outcomes that were later questioned or modified but never fully corrected in the official record. The result is a permanent administrative shadow that extends far beyond the intended scope of punishment.

At its core, the request urges the AFBCMR to exercise its statutory authority to correct injustice where rigid adherence to past records no longer serves fairness, discipline, or the integrity of the military justice system.

Why This Case Matters Beyond One Record

AFBCMR cases rarely make headlines, but they shape how the military balances accountability with rehabilitation. The petition underscores a broader concern shared by many former service members: that even after completing punishment, administrative records can continue to function as a second, unofficial sentence.

The filing emphasizes that military justice is not meant to be purely punitive. It is intended to be corrective, proportional, and consistent with constitutional protections. When records fail to reflect that balance, the AFBCMR exists as the final safeguard.

The petition focuses squarely on the service member’s experience, the lasting impact of the record, and the need for equitable correction under governing law.

What Happens Next

The AFBCMR will review the application, supporting memorandum, and exhibits submitted with the petition. If the Board grants relief, the correction could restore accuracy to the official record and eliminate ongoing consequences that no longer serve justice or military discipline.

For many former service members, AFBCMR decisions represent the final opportunity for institutional acknowledgment that fairness must sometimes prevail over permanence.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, DC–based military and federal employment law firm representing service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, administrative boards, record correction cases, security clearance matters, and constitutional challenges.

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. The client’s identity has been withheld to protect privacy.

When Service Is Met With Silence: Army Officer Secures Six-Figure Military Medical Malpractice Settlement

Posted on March 13, 2026 by Becky Haugen

She volunteered to serve. She trained to lead. And when she was injured, she trusted the military medical system to do what it promised.

Instead, a delayed diagnosis and treatment of a serious hip injury at a military treatment facility left her in escalating pain, struggling with mobility, and ultimately forced into medical retirement, ending a military career she had worked years to build.

After challenging the Army’s initial determination and pursuing accountability under the Military Claims Act, the officer has secured a six-figure settlement resolving her medical malpractice claim.

She was represented by Dylan Thayer, Military Defense Attorney with the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

A Delay That Changed Everything

In early 2022, the officer presented to a military hospital with symptoms that should have prompted urgent evaluation of a hip injury. According to the Army’s own findings, the injury was not timely diagnosed, delaying appropriate surgical care and prolonging her pain and suffering.

During the delay, she was instructed to continue physical movement and therapy, guidance that exacerbated her pain and limited her ability to perform basic daily activities.

What began as a treatable hip injury became something far more devastating.

She ultimately required surgical intervention. Despite treatment, the consequences lingered, chronic pain, lasting mobility limitations, and the loss of a military future.

Challenging the Initial Determination

The Army initially offered a substantially lower settlement amount. Through a formal request for reconsideration, supported by affidavits, medical records, and a detailed accounting of her physical, emotional, and professional losses, her legal team challenged that determination.

The Army ultimately agreed to a six-figure resolution, formalized through a Stipulation for Compromise Settlement and Release under 10 U.S.C. § 2733.

“This case was never just about a medical mistake,” said Dylan Thayer, Military Defense Attorney.

“It was about what happens when a service member’s pain is dismissed, their injury is delayed in treatment, and the consequences alter the course of their life. The Military Claims Act exists so service members have a pathway to accountability when preventable medical errors occur. She stood up and she was heard.”

Why This Case Matters

For decades, active-duty service members had no meaningful remedy for medical malpractice. That changed with the passage of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act, which expanded the Military Claims Act to allow claims arising from negligent medical care.

This case demonstrates that process working but only after persistence.

It underscores critical truths:

Delays in diagnosing hip injuries can permanently alter outcomes
Pain and suffering prior to surgery matter
Initial determinations can be challenged
Service members retain rights, even while serving

A Victory Beyond the Settlement

No settlement restores lost time or a career ended too soon.

But justice is not measured only in dollars.

It is measured in acknowledgment.
In accountability.
In refusing to accept silence.

This officer pursued her claim not only for herself, but to affirm a principle too often overlooked — service does not require surrendering the right to competent medical care.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, represents military service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide. The firm focuses on military justice, medical retirement and disability cases, correction of military records, and Military Claims Act litigation, advocating for those whose service deserves protection under the law.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is fact-specific, and outcomes depend on individual circumstances. The settlement described does not constitute an admission of liability by the United States. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

A Preventable Loss: Military Medical Negligence Claim Filed Under the Military Claims Act

Posted on March 4, 2026 by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has filed a Military Claims Act (MCA) medical malpractice claim on behalf of the estate of a U.S. Army service member whose life was cut short following documented cardiac warning signs that were never acted upon by military medical providers.

The claim, filed with the U.S. Army Claims Service, alleges that a Department of Defense healthcare provider failed to follow mandatory military medical regulations during the service member’s separation physical, despite clear and repeated indicators of serious cardiovascular distress. Less than a year after leaving active duty, the service member died suddenly from congestive heart failure at just 35 years old.

“This is not a case about hindsight,” said Dylan Thayer, Military Criminal Defense Attorney with the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “This is a case about missed red flags, ignored regulations, and a medical system that failed to intervene when intervention was both required and possible.”

Ignored Warnings, Mandatory Rules Overlooked

According to the claim, the service member reported multiple symptoms during his separation physical that are widely recognized as classic precursors to major adverse cardiac events, including shortness of breath, chest pressure, heart palpitations, dizziness, and blood pressure abnormalities. Under Army Regulation 40-501 and Department of Defense separation health policies, these symptoms required referral for further evaluation and entry into the Disability Evaluation System (DES).

That referral never occurred.

No cardiology consult was ordered. No diagnostic testing followed. No medical board was initiated.

An independent, board-certified cardiologist later reviewed the records and concluded that basic, standard-of-care interventions would likely have identified a treatable condition, potentially preventing the fatal outcome. The expert characterized the failure to act as especially egregious given modern cardiovascular medicine, noting that sudden cardiac death under these circumstances is now considered a “never event.”

A Case With Broader Implications

While the claim concerns one service member, the issues raised are far from isolated. The case highlights ongoing systemic risks faced by separating service members whose medical concerns are dismissed or deferred at the most vulnerable transition point of their military careers.

The Military Claims Act, enacted to provide a remedy for service members harmed by military medical malpractice, exists precisely for cases like this where negligence occurs incident to service, but accountability has historically been elusive.

“This filing is about more than one family’s loss,” Thayer added. “It’s about enforcing the rules that are supposed to protect service members before they take the uniform off — not after it’s too late.”

About the Military Claims Act

The Military Claims Act (10 U.S.C. § 2733a) allows service members or their estates to seek compensation for personal injury or death caused by medical malpractice at military treatment facilities. The statute requires proof that a Department of Defense healthcare provider breached the applicable standard of care and that the breach was the proximate cause of harm.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, is a nationally recognized firm representing service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, medical malpractice under the MCA, disability and retirement rights, courts-martial defense, and constitutional claims. The firm has decades of experience holding government systems accountable when they fail those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release discusses allegations contained in a pending administrative claim. All allegations remain subject to adjudication. No findings of liability have been made.

USPHS Retirement Pay Class Action Voluntarily Dismissed Following Restoration of Funding; Firm Remains Prepared to Act if Payments Are Disrupted Again

Posted on March 1, 2026March 4, 2026 by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has voluntarily dismissed the 2025 class action lawsuit filed on behalf of U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) retirees regarding delayed retirement pay during the federal government shutdown.

The dismissal follows the end of the shutdown and the restoration of appropriations, as well as the government’s issuance of full back pay for previously missed retirement payments. With funding restored and payments made, the case no longer presented a live case or controversy required for continued litigation.

“This was a voluntary dismissal driven by changed circumstances,” the firm explained. “Once appropriations were restored and retirees were paid the amounts owed, the legal basis for maintaining the action no longer existed.”

The firm carefully evaluated whether additional claims could be pursued, including potential recovery of interest for delayed payments, but determined that such claims are not legally viable under existing law. As a result, no remaining damages could be asserted at this time.

Preservation of Rights and Readiness to Act

The voluntary dismissal does not waive or release any future claims. The firm emphasized that it remains prepared to take immediate legal action should the government again fail to appropriate funds for USPHS retirement pay or delay payments following a future shutdown.

“The underlying issue has not been resolved structurally,” the firm noted. “If retirement payments are disrupted again, we stand ready to act without delay.”

Congressional Advocacy Remains Critical

The firm also underscored that lasting protection for USPHS retirees can only be achieved through legislative reform. Unlike other uniformed services, USPHS officers continue to face unequal treatment during full government shutdowns.

Retirees are strongly encouraged to engage in congressional outreach to their Senators and Representatives to advocate for statutory changes that would:

Equalize USPHS retirement protections with other uniformed services
Ensure uninterrupted retirement payments during future shutdowns
Remove retirement pay from vulnerability to annual appropriations lapses

Staying Engaged

Although there is no active class action at this time, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC will continue monitoring funding developments and shutdown risk. Retirees who wish to remain informed or indicate continued interest in future action are encouraged to stay connected.

Federal Court Challenge Highlights Systemic Failures in Correcting Injustice Within the Uniformed Force, the United States Public Health Service

Posted on January 16, 2026 by Becky Haugen

A federal lawsuit now before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia brings renewed attention to the obligation of military correction boards to correct injustices in the records of uniformed service members, particularly when clear evidence shows systemic failures in supervision, medical oversight, and administrative review. The case arises for a uniformed officer serving in the United States Public Health Service (PHS).

In this case, an accomplished commissioned officer seeks judicial review after a federal agency official overturned a formal PHS Board for Correction (BFC) finding that an injustice had occurred. The complaint challenges whether the agency’s leadership may disregard its own correction board’s fact-based conclusions without evidentiary support, and whether such actions violate long-standing administrative law principles.

A Record Showing Red Flags, But No Intervention

According to the court filings, the correction board determined that the officer’s service record reflected unmistakable warning signs of a serious medical condition tied to a line-of-duty injury and prescribed treatment. Despite repeated absences and performance concerns that should have triggered inquiry and assistance, the record showed no evidence that supervisors ever confronted the officer, investigated the underlying cause, or referred the matter for appropriate treatment.

The PHS BFC concluded that this failure constituted a clear injustice, particularly where governing regulations emphasize early identification, supervisory responsibility, and mandatory referral when substance-related or medical impairment is suspected. Those findings were grounded in the administrative record and supported by established precedent recognizing that silence and stigma often prevent individuals from self-reporting medical conditions.

Despite the PHS BFC’s determination, a senior agency official rejected the recommendation and denied relief without identifying evidence contradicting the Board’s findings. The complaint argues that this reversal was arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to grapple with the record evidence, ignored the board’s conclusions, and substituted unsupported assertions in place of reasoned analysis

Equally significant, the agency attempted to deny the officer’s application “with prejudice.” In response, the government has now effectively conceded in its court filings that such denials are not permitted under the governing statute—an admission that carries implications well beyond this individual case.

At its core, this litigation is about accountability. Federal correction boards exist to remedy injustice when the system fails. When their findings are overridden without evidence, service members lose faith in the very mechanisms designed to protect them.

This case underscores:

The duty of supervisors to act when medical or behavioral red flags appear
The legal limits on agency discretion when overturning correction-board decisions
The continuing role of federal courts in safeguarding due process for those who served

For service members navigating complex medical and administrative challenges, the outcome of this case may shape how agencies nationwide honor their statutory responsibilities.

About the Firm

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, security clearance matters, military correction boards, disability and retirement cases, and complex federal litigation.

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this publication. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Constitution vs. Unlawful Retaliation: Why This Lawsuit Matters to Every Service Member

Posted on January 15, 2026January 16, 2026 by Becky Haugen

A constitutional line has been crossed, and every service member, veteran, and military family should be paying close attention.

In a newly filed federal lawsuit, a retired U.S. Navy service member, Arizona Senior Senator Mark Kelly, CAPT, USN (retired) is challenging what many legal experts are calling an unprecedented and unlawful act: a post-retirement demotion allegedly driven by political retaliation. The case, now drawing national attention, raises fundamental questions about free speech, civilian control, and the integrity of military justice itself.

As reported in Axios, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan did not mince words in her assessment, calling the action “patently politically motivated” and warning that it represents a direct attack on long-standing constitutional protections afforded to both active-duty personnel and retirees.

A Dangerous Expansion of Power

At the center of the lawsuit is an effort reportedly tied to Pete Hegseth that seeks to retroactively punish a retired service member, someone no longer subject to the day-to-day authority of the chain of command. If allowed to stand, this move would represent a dramatic expansion of government power into territory that has historically been off-limits.

Military retirement is not a conditional privilege that can be revoked for disfavored speech. It is an earned status, grounded in decades of service and protected by constitutional principles. As Morgan explains, using rank demotion as a political weapon risks transforming military justice into a tool of retaliation rather than discipline.

The Chilling Effect on Free Speech

The implications extend far beyond one individual.

If retirees can be punished years later for expressing political views, criticizing government leadership, or participating in public discourse, the result will be a chilling effect across the entire military community. Active-duty service members, reservists, and veterans alike may reasonably fear that speaking out, even lawfully, could jeopardize their careers, benefits, or reputations.

That outcome cuts directly against the First Amendment and undermines the trust that service members must have in a fair, apolitical system of justice.

Why This Lawsuit Is a Line in the Sand

This case is not about politics; it is about limits.

It asks whether the government can reach backward in time to impose punishment on someone who has already completed honorable service. It challenges whether military authority ends at retirement, as the law has long recognized, or whether it can be revived whenever speech becomes inconvenient.

As covered in Axios, the lawsuit positions itself as a landmark challenge to government overreach, one that could set precedent for how far retaliation may go if left unchecked.

What Comes Next

Courts now have the opportunity and the responsibility to reaffirm that constitutional protections do not disappear at the end of active service. For veterans who have already given years, and often decades, to the nation, that assurance is not symbolic. It is essential.

This case will shape the future of military justice, free speech, and the relationship between service and citizenship.

Read the full Axios reporting here to understand why this lawsuit matters not just to one retired officer, but to every person who has worn the uniform.

A Season of Gratitude for Those Who Serve and Those Still Waiting

Posted on December 24, 2025December 23, 2025 by Becky Haugen

As families gather during the holiday season, it is a time to pause and express gratitude—for service, for sacrifice, and for the quiet resilience of those who continue to serve even when recognition comes slowly, if at all.

Across the military and federal workforce, many service members and employees spend this time of year navigating unresolved challenges: pending medical evaluations, delayed retirement decisions, discharge reviews still under consideration, or careers placed on hold by administrative processes that move far more slowly than life itself. These are not abstract issues. They shape families’ futures, financial stability, and a sense of dignity earned through years of service.

This season invites reflection not only on what has been given, but on what is still owed—fair process, timely decisions, and lawful treatment. Gratitude does not require silence about the systems that affect those who serve. Instead, it can take the form of patient advocacy, careful attention to detail, and a commitment to ensuring that every case is reviewed on its merits.

For many, the holidays arrive without resolution. Yet service continues—often quietly, often unseen. Families adapt. Careers wait. And hope persists that the coming year will bring clarity, fairness, and accountability.

At this time of year, we extend our sincere thanks to service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families. Your service matters. Your patience is not unnoticed. And your right to fair treatment under the law remains essential—during the holidays and beyond.

After Years of Legal Barriers, Client Secures Critical Breakthrough in Mandamus Fight to Restore Full Appellate Review

Posted on December 2, 2025 by Becky Haugen

In a case defined by extraordinary perseverance and complex jurisdictional obstacles, a former Guantanamo detainee represented by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has taken a major step forward in the effort to secure the full measure of appellate review guaranteed under federal law.

For more than a decade, the client has fought, often against procedural roadblocks not of their own making, to obtain a lawful review of their conviction by the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), as required under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). Despite years of delay, shifting interpretations of waiver rules, repeated abeyances, and a novel assertion of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the client has refused to abandon the pursuit of lawful, congressionally mandated review.

Today’s development underscores one truth: the client’s courage, resilience, and insistence on the rule of law have kept this case alive when institutions failed to act.

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

The client’s path to justice has been anything but direct. Though Congress established mandatory appellate review for military commission cases, the procedural history of this matter has been marked by:

Multiple delays and long periods of abeyance at the USCMCR
Government-created procedural roadblocks to obtain the record necessary for appeal, requiring mandamus intervention
A eventual dismissal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, despite the client’s transfer being conducted under a formal diplomatic agreement—not flight, evasion, or refusal to appear and client remaining subject to lawful extradition

At every stage, the client remained steadfast. At every barrier, the client continued to assert the right Congress guarantees.

“This case has always been about ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored,” said Annie Morgan. “Our client has shown extraordinary strength in the face of procedural obstacles that should never have occurred. Their resilience is the reason we are still moving forward. And we will continue to fight until the statutory right to review is finally fulfilled.”

Why This Case Matters

This fight extends well beyond a single appeal. At its core, it speaks to:

The long-standing brokenness of the military commissions systems;
The duty of tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction Congress mandates; and
The fundamental principle that no person, no matter the forum, should lose their rights due to administrative delay or misapplied doctrine.

Congress was explicit:
The USCMCR “shall review the record in each case submitted to it.” (10 U.S.C. § 950f(d)).

When agencies fail to act, the courts must intervene. That is the purpose of mandamus—and the reason this client’s fight continues.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier national practice focused on military law, federal employment, veteran’s rights, and the defense of service members across all uniformed services. Our team litigates before military commissions, federal courts, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the MSPB, and agencies across the United States. We are committed to protecting those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release provides general information regarding ongoing litigation and does not offer legal advice. No confidential client details have been disclosed. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.