Category: Firm News

Army Medical Officer Asks ABCMR to Correct Decades Old Disability Retirement Record

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army Medical Officer Asks ABCMR to Correct Decades Old Disability Retirement Record

Filing Seeks Review of Disability Rating, Retirement Processing and Long-Term Consequences of an Army Medical Separation

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has applied to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) on behalf of a former Army medical officer seeking correction of records arising from a disability retirement process that began more than two decades ago.

The application asks the ABCMR to correct the former officer’s military records to reflect a 100% disability rating at the time of medical retirement, together with back pay and any benefits or entitlements resulting from that correction. Alternatively, the filing asks that the records be corrected to reflect retirement under the Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) and requests any other relief the Board determines to be just and appropriate.

At the center of the case is an Army medical professional whose career, according to the filing, was distinguished by years of superior evaluations, demanding clinical responsibilities and military service that included support of Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm.

The application describes an officer who served both as a nurse and certified registered nurse anesthetist and who repeatedly received exceptionally favorable professional evaluations. The record cited in the filing reflects top performance and promotion recommendations from multiple raters and senior raters throughout the officer’s career.

The filing further states that the officer received numerous military awards and professional recognitions and that a review of the evaluation record revealed no negative performance remarks or departures from the highest evaluation standards before the medical-disability process altered the course of the officer’s career.

From a Finding of Fitness to Disability Retirement

The case traces a complicated history through the Army’s disability evaluation system.

According to the application, an initial Physical Evaluation Board in 1998 determined that the officer remained physically fit to perform military duties. A later evaluation resulted in a substantially different outcome.

In March 2002, a second Physical Evaluation Board found the officer unfit for continued military service and recommended placement on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a 30% disability rating because the medical condition was not considered sufficiently stable for final adjudication. The officer was subsequently placed on the TDRL after more than 15 years of active-duty service. The filing states that a Department of Veterans Affairs disability rating for the underlying condition was initially 30% and later increased to 100%, effective in 2018.

The application does not contend that a later VA rating automatically establishes an error by the Army. Instead, it asks the ABCMR to consider the entire historical record, including the evolving medical understanding of the condition and the circumstances surrounding the original military disability determination.

Questions Surrounding the Permanent Retirement Decision

One of the central arguments presented to the ABCMR concerns what happened while the officer remained on the TDRL.

The application argues that the medical record continued to reflect uncertainty and disagreement concerning symptoms, diagnosis and treatment and that the condition had not been adequately established as permanent and stable when the officer was removed from the TDRL and permanently retired.

The filing contends that this processing deprived the officer of a meaningful opportunity to pursue another retirement path that was available during the relevant period, including retirement under TERA.

That distinction matters because the requested record correction could affect not simply the characterization of events decades ago, but the retirement benefits available to the former officer today.

The filing also explains that subsequent denials of Combat-Related Special Compensation have affected the interaction between military retirement pay and VA disability compensation. The application therefore asks the Board to examine the consequences of the original retirement processing in the context of the full record rather than viewing the original disability percentage in isolation.

Professional Consequences Beyond Retirement Pay

The application also asks the ABCMR to consider the broader professional consequences that followed the officer’s medical difficulties.

The filing describes the suspension of the officer’s clinical privileges while serving as a military medical professional. It argues that the resulting credentialing history produced consequences extending far beyond separation from the Army because healthcare professionals may face continuing disclosure obligations concerning adverse credentialing actions.

Significantly, the filing states that the underlying records repeatedly indicated that patient care had not been adversely affected. Nevertheless, according to the application, the credentialing action had lasting consequences for the officer’s ability to continue working in the medical profession.

The case therefore presents the ABCMR with a question that extends beyond a historical disability percentage: whether the complete record now demonstrates an error or injustice warranting correction under the Board’s equitable authority.

Asking the ABCMR to Examine the Complete Record

The application acknowledges that the request comes many years after the underlying military decisions. It asks the ABCMR to excuse that delay in the interest of justice, pointing both to the applicant’s circumstances and to the difficulty of reconstructing military records that were not centrally available.

The filing argues that the strength of the underlying claim should be considered when determining whether the Board should reach the merits despite the passage of time.

Ultimately, the case asks the Board to look at an entire military career rather than a single moment in the disability process: years of strong performance, medical evaluations that changed over time, placement on the TDRL, permanent retirement, subsequent disability developments and the long-term financial and professional consequences of those decisions.

The application asks the ABCMR to correct the former officer’s Army records to reflect a 100% disability rating at the time of medical retirement or, alternatively, TERA retirement, together with the corrections, back pay and entitlements necessary to implement whatever relief the Board grants.

Fleming Keefe, Litigation Attorney, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who drafted and submitted the comprehensive submission, concluded: “Boards for Correction of Military Records exist because decisions made years ago can continue to affect a service member long after the uniform comes off. This application asks the Army to examine the complete record of the officer’s service, medical history, disability processing and the consequences that followed  and determine whether justice now requires a correction.”

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 in matters involving military and federal law. The firm handles complex matters involving military records corrections, disability evaluation and retirement proceedings, administrative actions, military appeals and federal litigation.

For additional information about the firm and its military law practice, visit MilitaryDefense.com.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20003
202-546-9575

DISCLAIMER

This release concerns allegations and legal arguments contained in an application submitted to the Army Board for Correction of Military Records. The filing represents the applicant’s position, and no determination by the ABCMR should be inferred from the filing of the application.

This material is provided for general informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee or predict future outcomes. Every military or federal administrative matter depends upon its individual facts, governing law and procedural history.

Certain identifying information has been intentionally withheld to protect the privacy of the applicant.

© 2026 Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. All rights reserved.

 

 

 

America at 250: Liberty, Service, and the Rule of Law

Posted on by Becky Haugen

We The People 250th Celebration

250 Years of a Continuing Promise: Liberty, Service, and the Rule of Law

On July 4, 2026, the United States marks 250 years since the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence. It is a moment for celebration, certainly, but also for reflection. The Declaration did not promise that America would be perfect. It declared an enduring standard: that every person possesses inherent rights, that government derives its authority from the people, and that liberty must be protected against the abuse of power.

Two and a half centuries later, that promise still calls Americans to a shared responsibility.

The Declaration gave the nation its vision. The Constitution gave that vision structure. Its opening words, “We the People,” establish a government accountable to the people it serves, one designed to establish justice, provide for the common defense, and secure liberty for future generations. The Bill of Rights reinforced that commitment by placing meaningful limits on government power and protecting individual freedoms.

These principles do not belong to one political party, one profession, one generation, or one community. They belong to all Americans.

They are carried forward by those who serve in uniform and take an oath to support and defend the Constitution. They are carried forward by veterans who have already borne the weight of service, by federal employees who carry out the everyday work of government, and by families who support those called to serve. They are also carried forward by citizens who vote, speak, listen, advocate, serve their communities, and insist that our institutions live up to the standards they were created to uphold.

The defenders of the Constitution are not only found on a battlefield or in a courtroom. They are found wherever Americans choose principle over convenience, fairness over indifference, and accountability over unchecked authority.

That is what makes this anniversary meaningful.

The rule of law is not an abstract idea reserved for history books or ceremonial speeches. It is felt in the real lives of people: in whether a service member receives due process; whether a veteran is treated with dignity; whether a federal employee is judged fairly; whether a whistleblower can raise concerns without unlawful retaliation; whether a family is heard when government action changes the course of a life.

For those who have served the nation, constitutional protections must be more than words. Fair process, complete records, lawful decision-making, meaningful review, and respect for individual rights are essential to the trust that binds a citizen to government. When that trust is honored, the nation is stronger. When it is disregarded, Americans have both the right and the responsibility to seek accountability through the lawful institutions our constitutional system provides.

This is not a partisan commitment. It is a civic one.

America’s history includes extraordinary achievement, profound sacrifice, and difficult chapters that remind us that the promise of liberty and justice for all is never self-executing. Each generation inherits both the benefits of freedom and the duty to protect it. The Constitution does not ask Americans to be passive observers of their democracy. It asks us to remain engaged, to preserve rights, respect one another’s humanity, and demand that public power be exercised lawfully and responsibly.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we see the continuing importance of those principles in the lives of the people we serve. Our work often begins when someone feels unheard by a system, burdened by an unfair decision, or uncertain whether the rights they earned through service will be respected. In those moments, the promise of the Constitution becomes deeply personal.

On this 250th anniversary of American independence, we honor those who have defended the nation in uniform, those who serve it in public life, and all Americans who continue the work of building a more just union.

The nation’s founding promise remains unfinished only if we stop striving toward it.

May this Independence Day be a time to remember what liberty requires: courage, service, accountability, and a continued commitment to justice for all.

“America’s founding documents set a standard that remains as important today as it was 250 years ago: government must be accountable to the people, and individual rights must be protected under the law. This July 4, we honor those who have served to defend that promise and renew our commitment to ensuring it remains meaningful for every person whose life is affected by government action.”
— David P. Sheldon, Founder, Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents service members, veterans, federal employees, and other individuals navigating military, federal, and administrative legal matters. The firm is committed to principled advocacy, due process, and the protection of rights under law.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational and educational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Every legal matter depends on its individual facts, governing law, and procedural posture.

References

The National Archives recognizes July 4, 1776, as the date the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence.

The National Archives’ founding-document resources describe the Declaration as expressing the ideals on which the United States was founded, the Constitution as establishing the framework of the federal government, and the Bill of Rights as defining rights in relation to government.

Physicians Seek Accountability After Dismissed Federal Case Leaves Lasting Professional Damage

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal Lawsuit Challenges Government Records, Press Releases, and Background Reports That Plaintiffs Allege Continue to Destroy Their Careers

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC has filed a federal lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on behalf of Dr. Jamie Lee Henry and Dr. Anna Gabrielian, seeking damages and injunctive relief under the Privacy Act of 1974 and the Fifth Amendment after what the complaint alleges was years of reputational harm caused by inaccurate and misleading government records.

The complaint follows one of the most widely publicized federal prosecutions involving medical professionals in recent years, a prosecution that ultimately ended with all criminal charges dismissed with prejudice after the Court found violations of the Speedy Trial Act.

Yet according to the newly filed civil action, the dismissal did not end the consequences.

Instead, the lawsuit alleges that government press releases, practitioner databases, and federal background screening systems continued to portray the physicians as individuals facing national security allegations long after the case had been permanently dismissed, effectively preventing them from rebuilding their professional lives.

When an Acquittal Isn’t Enough

For physicians, reputation is more than a personal asset, it is a professional credential.

Every hospital appointment, medical license, credentialing review, military privilege, and employment opportunity depends upon the accuracy of federal records and background investigations.

The complaint alleges that despite the dismissal of every criminal charge, government records continued to circulate allegations suggesting disloyalty to the United States, national security concerns, and professional misconduct.

According to the complaint, these records appeared in:

  • Department of Justice press releases
  • Federal practitioner databases
  • Background screening systems relied upon by hospitals
  • Credentialing organizations
  • State licensing authorities
  • Healthcare employers nationwide

The lawsuit contends that those records continued to produce devastating professional consequences long after the criminal case had ended.

A Career Built on Service

Dr. Jamie Lee Henry served nearly twenty years as an Army physician, caring for service members and their families while conducting infectious disease research and participating in humanitarian medical efforts around the world.

Dr. Anna Gabrielian built her career as an anesthesiologist at Johns Hopkins, contributing to maternal health initiatives, medical education, battlefield medicine projects for Ukraine, and international humanitarian programs.

The complaint details decades of public service, military medicine, research, and volunteer efforts that plaintiffs argue stand in stark contrast to the narrative created by the government’s public statements.

Dismissed With Prejudice, but the Story Continued

The underlying criminal prosecution concluded when the United States District Court dismissed every charge with prejudice after finding violations of the Speedy Trial Act.

According to the complaint, the Court described:

  • the allegations as “highly unusual,”
  • the medical records involved as “relatively inconsequential,”
  • and expressed “grave concerns” regarding the government’s handling of the prosecution.

Despite that dismissal, the lawsuit alleges that a DOJ press release remained publicly available for nearly two years without reflecting the final disposition of the case and continued to contain statements suggesting the physicians were “facing federal indictment.”

The complaint further alleges that the government eventually added only a brief notation acknowledging dismissal while leaving the original narrative and allegations substantially intact.

The Lasting Effect of Digital Government Records

Unlike traditional news coverage, government press releases frequently become permanent source material for:

  • background investigations,
  • credentialing databases,
  • licensing reviews,
  • compliance screening,
  • hospital hiring decisions,
  • and practitioner reporting systems.

The lawsuit alleges that those records were incorporated into healthcare screening systems that continued to identify Dr. Gabrielian as facing federal indictment months after dismissal and continued to affect employment opportunities nationwide.

The complaint similarly challenges a National Practitioner Data Bank report affecting Dr. Henry, arguing that it failed to accurately reflect the dismissal of the underlying criminal allegations while characterizing the matter as professional misconduct.

A Case About Due Process in the Digital Age

While the complaint seeks substantial monetary damages, it is equally focused on correcting government records.

The lawsuit raises broader questions about:

  • the government’s responsibility to maintain accurate public records,
  • whether outdated accusations should remain permanently accessible after dismissal,
  • and how inaccurate federal information can continue to affect professional licensing, employment, and constitutional liberty interests.

As public information increasingly becomes permanent digital history, the lawsuit asks whether government agencies have an obligation to ensure that dismissed allegations are not indefinitely presented as current facts.

Statement from Counsel

“A dismissed case should not become a permanent professional sentence. Our clients dedicated their lives to healing others and serving their country. When government records continue to publish allegations after the justice system has spoken, the damage extends far beyond the courtroom. This lawsuit seeks accountability, correction of the public record, and restoration of rights that should never have been lost.” David P. Sheldon, Founding Attorney

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents military service members, federal employees, physicians, healthcare professionals, veterans, and uniformed personnel before federal courts, administrative agencies, licensing authorities, military correction boards, and appellate tribunals throughout the United States. The firm is committed to protecting constitutional rights, professional licenses, careers, and reputations.

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. The allegations described are contained in a publicly filed civil complaint. All defendants are entitled to respond to those allegations, and the claims remain subject to judicial determination.

 

 

When Care Is Afloat, Accountability Cannot End at the Waterline

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Care Is Afloat, Accountability Cannot End at the Waterline

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Files D.C. Circuit Appeal Challenging DoD Rule That Bars Shipboard Military Medical-Malpractice Claims

When a service member is deployed at sea, medical care is not optional. The military medical department aboard the ship is often the only available source of treatment. A new appeal filed in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit asks whether the Department of Defense may nevertheless deny a military medical-malpractice claim simply because the care occurred aboard a ship.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents Plaintiff-Appellant Derrick Luckey in Luckey v. Hegseth, No. 26-5094. On June 30, 2026, the firm filed its principal appellate brief seeking reversal of the District Court’s dismissal of Mr. Luckey’s challenge to the Department of Defense’s denial of a claim arising from the death of his daughter, Navy Seaman Danyelle Luckey.

According to the filing, Seaman Luckey became seriously ill while deployed aboard the USS Ronald Reagan in October 2016. The brief alleges that she repeatedly sought treatment through the ship’s medical department as her condition deteriorated, and that she later died after allegedly inadequate medical care aboard the vessel. The appeal does not ask the D.C. Circuit to determine whether medical malpractice occurred. Instead, it asks whether the Department of Defense may prevent the claim from being reviewed under the statutory process Congress created for military medical-malpractice claims.

At issue is the SFC Richard Stayskal Military Medical Accountability Act, codified at 10 U.S.C. § 2733a. The law permits certain administrative claims by service members, or authorized representatives on their behalf, when medical malpractice occurs in a covered military medical treatment facility. The appeal argues that the Department of Defense’s implementing regulation, 32 C.F.R. § 45.5(b)(2), unlawfully excludes medical care provided aboard ships from that process.

The firm’s filing maintains that Congress did not create a blanket exemption for ships. It argues that a naval medical department providing care to thousands of deployed service members, in a setting where civilian medical care is unavailable, should not be treated as outside the reach of a law intended to provide accountability for military medical negligence.

The appeal also raises a separate issue involving the deadline for filing a claim. The governing regulation incorporates a discovery rule, providing that a claim accrues when a claimant knew, or reasonably should have known, of both the injury and that malpractice was a possible cause. Mr. Luckey’s filing argues that the Department of Defense failed to apply that rule fairly where official records initially identified his daughter’s death as resulting from natural causes and an independent expert opinion later identified alleged medical negligence as a possible cause.

The District Court dismissed the case on January 29, 2026, concluding that the Military Claims Act’s finality provision barred judicial review. The appeal asks the D.C. Circuit to apply the established exception permitting review when an agency has misconstrued governing law, departed from important procedural protections, or committed an error that goes to the heart of the administrative determination.

“Service members deployed at sea cannot simply choose another hospital when military medical care is the only care available,” said David P. Sheldon, founder of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “Congress created a pathway for accountability in military medical malpractice matters. This appeal asks whether that pathway can be closed simply because the care occurred on a ship.”

The questions raised by Luckey v. Hegseth extend beyond one family. Service members receive medical care in operational settings every day, aboard ships, in aircraft, during deployments, and far from civilian hospitals. The outcome may help define whether the protections Congress established for military medical-malpractice claims apply where military medicine is most essential and least replaceable.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC will continue to advocate for meaningful accountability, fair administrative process, and access to justice for service members and families affected by alleged failures in military medical care.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents service members, veterans, federal employees, and their families in complex military, federal administrative, appellate, and constitutional matters. The firm advocates for clients facing high-stakes issues involving military justice, military medical care, records corrections, disability matters, federal employment, and government accountability.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. It describes allegations and legal arguments contained in a pending appeal. No court has determined that medical malpractice occurred in this matter, and past results do not guarantee a similar outcome in any future case.

Supreme Court Petition Challenges Limits of Executive Authority Over Military Promotions

Posted on by Becky Haugen

SCOTUS Appeal

Former Navy Officer Seeks Supreme Court Review of D.C. Circuit Decision Interpreting 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5)

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari asking the Supreme Court of the United States to review a significant military personnel law case involving the interpretation of federal promotion statutes, Congressional authority over the armed forces, and the constitutional balance between the legislative and executive branches.

The petition was filed on behalf of Lieutenant Ernest F. Mitchell, U.S. Navy, who challenges decisions by the Board for Correction of Naval Records, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concerning the Navy’s handling of his promotion to Lieutenant Commander. The petition presents a single constitutional question: whether the courts improperly nullified Congress’s express statutory limitation on military promotion delays contained in 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5).

The Supreme Court filing follows the D.C. Circuit’s March 13, 2026 decision affirming the lower court’s ruling that Lieutenant Mitchell was not promoted “by operation of law” despite remaining on the promotion list beyond the statutory 18-month limitation established by Congress.

A Question Affecting Military Officers Across the Armed Forces

At the heart of the petition is a straightforward question with potentially broad implications for military personnel:

Congress enacted a statute providing that an officer’s appointment “may not be delayed” beyond eighteen months after the date the officer otherwise would have been appointed. Lieutenant Mitchell argues that when the government exceeds that statutory deadline, Congress intended the promotion process to conclude and the appointment to take effect. The petition contends that the D.C. Circuit’s interpretation effectively reads the statutory deadline out of existence and leaves military officers without a meaningful remedy when the government violates the law.

The petition further argues that the case presents an important separation-of-powers issue involving Congress’s constitutional authority to “make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces.”

Representation

Lieutenant Mitchell continues to be represented by David P. Sheldon, founder of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

What the Legal Team Expects to Advance

The Supreme Court petition seeks more than relief for a single officer. The case presents an opportunity for the Court to clarify:

  • Whether Congress may impose enforceable deadlines on military promotion delays;
  • Whether courts may effectively nullify statutory protections by finding no remedy for an acknowledged violation;
  • The proper balance between Congressional authority over military personnel systems and executive appointment powers;
  • The rights of service members who have been nominated, Senate-confirmed, and then subjected to administrative delays beyond limits established by federal law.

The case presents a recurring question affecting thousands of military officers whose careers, promotions, retirement calculations, and future opportunities may depend upon the faithful application of federal promotion statutes. The petition argues that only the Supreme Court can provide uniform guidance on the meaning and enforceability of 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5).

Statement from the Legal Team

“This petition asks whether statutory protections enacted by Congress have real force or merely symbolic value,” said David P. Sheldon. “When Congress establishes a deadline governing military promotions, service members deserve to know whether that deadline means what it says. We believe this case presents an important constitutional question worthy of Supreme Court review.”

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents military service members, veterans, federal employees, and uniformed service professionals worldwide in courts-martial, military administrative proceedings, correction board matters, security clearance cases, federal employment disputes, appellate litigation, and federal court actions.

For more information, visit www.militarydefense.com.

Disclaimer

The materials contained in this release are provided for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Filing a petition for certiorari does not guarantee Supreme Court review. Every case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee future outcomes. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

Memorial Day: Honoring Those Who Gave All

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In remembrance of all who have fallen, Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we have the privilege of serving many who wear the uniform, have worn it, or continue to carry the weight of service long after returning home. Today, we especially recognize those who never made that journey back.

We remember the fallen. We honor their families. We remain grateful for the freedoms preserved through their sacrifice.

As you spend time with loved ones this weekend, we encourage a moment of quiet reflection for those who gave all.

May we never forget.

#MemorialDay #HonorTheFallen #NeverForget #MilitaryFamilies #Veterans #ServiceAndSacrifice #MilitaryJustice #MilitaryDefense

When Timing Decides the Case: D.C. Circuit to Hear Oral Argument on Military Record Correction Deadline

Posted on by Becky Haugen

DC Barrett Perryman Courthouse

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has scheduled oral argument in Murphy v. Driscoll, Case No. 25-5119, for Friday, April 10, 2026 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom 31 before a panel consisting of Chief Judge Sri Srinivasan, Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, and Judge Neomi Rao.

Each side will be allotted 10 minutes to present argument.

This appeal focuses on a narrow but critical legal issue: whether the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) reopened the case when it reconsidered the service member’s claims years later — a determination that directly impacts whether the case is barred by the statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401.

As outlined in prior filings , the government maintains that the Board’s most recent action was merely a denial of reconsideration and did not restart the statutory clock. The appellant disputes that position, arguing that the Board’s actions constituted a reopening sufficient to permit judicial review.

“This is a procedurally significant case with real consequences for service members,” said the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “The Court’s analysis will help clarify when reconsideration crosses the line into reopening — and when a service member’s right to judicial review is preserved.”

While the Court will not reach the underlying merits of the client’s disability-related claims, the outcome may have broader implications for how military correction board cases are litigated, particularly where applications are revisited years after initial decisions.

This case serves as a timely reminder: service members seeking to correct their records should act promptly and with experienced counsel to preserve their rights.

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Filing Jursidiction

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 by Becky Haugen

Federal Lawsuit Filed

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.