Category: Firm News

After Air Force Discrimination Settlement, National Guard Memo Signals Internal Response to Harassment Concerns

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Civilian HR Memo Appears in Wake of High-Profile EEOC Settlement: A Sign of Policy Reinforcement at the National Guard Bureau?

In the aftermath of a significant EEOC-approved discrimination settlement involving a senior Air Force civilian, new developments have emerged at the Temple Army Readiness Center (TARC), home to several Army National Guard Bureau (NGB) offices, including Civilian Human Resources.

Recently, a memo titled “Civilian Management” authored by Lisa M. Sessions, HR Specialist (ARNG-HCM-CMB), was discovered posted at TARC. Though the document itself offers a high-level overview of HR responsibilities for Title 5 and Title 10 civilians, its timing and location suggest it may be more than routine communication.

While the memo does not reference any specific case or individual, those familiar with ongoing personnel matters at TARC note that it was likely posted in response to HR concerns and as a corrective step following the resolution of a federal discrimination case.

That case, which involved allegations of workplace harassment, racial and age-based discrimination, and a hostile supervisory environment was resolved in April 2025 with a multi-six-figure settlement and six-figure attorney fee reimbursement after formal EEOC review and judicial approval. According to public information, the complainant, a high-ranking African American federal civilian, had endured repeated incidents that prompted legal action and ultimately institutional remedies.

Legal professionals reviewing the matter believe the Civilian Management memo may reflect an effort by HR leadership at NGB to assert visibility, clarify roles, and demonstrate responsiveness to emerging personnel challenges. However, questions remain about the memo’s authorship authority, distribution method, and whether proper protocols were followed in its posting at a secure federal site like TARC.

More notably, the memo’s content, while affirming the administrative scope of Civilian HR does not explicitly reference EEO procedures, anti-harassment protocols, or the rights of employees to report misconduct, leaving some observers to question whether the posting sufficiently addressed the concerns it may have intended to quell.

“Given the legal and financial consequences federal agencies now face when harassment is mishandled, internal communications must be both timely and policy-compliant,” one legal analyst familiar with the matter commented. “Posting an HR overview may be part of a good-faith response, but without context or clear EEO guidance, the impact is limited.”

The Civilian Management branch of the Army National Guard oversees a broad array of personnel actions, from staffing and classification to labor relations and awards administration. Whether this memo reflects a shift in internal culture or simply a reactive gesture remains to be seen.

What is clear is that agencies across the federal spectrum are now operating under heightened scrutiny, especially when cases of discrimination and retaliation surface. As recent legal outcomes continue to shape institutional responses, effective policy implementation will be judged not only by documentation, but by procedural integrity and employee trust.

 

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this blog post is for general informational and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice, nor does it reflect the official views or statements of any government agency or party involved in the referenced matters. The authors do not represent the federal government, the complainant, or any individuals mentioned in this narrative. All opinions expressed are based on publicly available information and are intended to contribute to the broader discussion on workplace rights, procedural transparency, and civilian personnel policy within federal agencies. Readers are encouraged to consult with legal counsel for advice regarding specific circumstances.

Veteran USPHS Officer Challenges Unlawful Denial of Career-Defining Benefits in Federal Court

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), with over three decades of distinguished service across multiple branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, has filed a federal lawsuit alleging that bureaucratic failures and unlawful actions within the Department of Health and Human Services unjustly derailed his career, denied him a well-earned promotion to the rank of Captain, and significantly reduced his retirement benefits.

The legal action, filed today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, seeks judicial review of the USPHS Board for Correction’s refusal to credit six months of volunteer hospice work toward the officer’s Training and Education (TED) credit, a critical factor in determining initial rank, career trajectory, and eligibility for timely promotion. Despite multiple requests dating back to 2005 and a detailed appeal filed in 2022, the Board rejected his application as “untimely” and unsupported, ignoring compelling new evidence and legal arguments. His reconsideration request was also summarily denied in less than 24 hours by a contractor who lacked legal authority to issue such a decision.

“This is a case of clear legal error compounded by procedural miscues,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C. “Our client was misinformed by USPHS officials at the time of his recommissioning. Because of that bad advice, he was brought in at too low a rank, which permanently altered his promotion timeline and ultimately cost him a Captain’s commission. To make matters worse, the agency then ignored its own precedent, denied reconsideration through improper channels, and turned a blind eye to its own regulations.”

The plaintiff, who served in the Navy, Army National Guard, and USPHS, had consistently received superior performance evaluations and was nominated for commendations, including for his role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. His lawsuit cites violations of federal administrative law, including the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), and challenges the Board’s refusal to even consider the similarities between his case and a prior Board ruling (PHS BCMR Case No. 18-005) in which another officer was granted full TED credit under nearly identical circumstances.

“This isn’t just about one officer’s career,” Thayer emphasized. “It’s about ensuring that our federal service members are treated fairly, that their records reflect their actual contributions, and that agencies follow the law instead of arbitrarily denying benefits based on flawed or biased processes.”

If successful, the case could result in the officer’s record being corrected to reflect the higher TED credit, a retroactive promotion to Captain, and significant backpay and increased retirement benefits. The implications may also extend to other current and former USPHS officers who were misadvised or administratively mishandled.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized law firm specializing in military and federal employment law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees in matters involving military justice, promotions, disability and retirement benefits, and wrongful termination.

 

Disclaimer

This press release is issued by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, and is intended for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship.

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

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

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

 

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

 

Former Navy Member Appeals Federal Ruling in Disability Benefits Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Court Asked to Reconsider Standards Used to Deny Full Medical Retirement

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

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

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

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

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

ABOUT THE LAW FIRM

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

DISCLAIMER

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

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

DISCLAIMER:

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

 

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

Legal Violations Cited

The complaint alleges several federal legal violations, including:

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

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

The lawsuit seeks:

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

A Case with National Implications

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

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

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

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

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

 

Disclaimer

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

What This Filing Means for the Defendant

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

Correcting a Deep Wrong

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

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon:

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

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Department of Defense denied it.

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

This decision matters.

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

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

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

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

The injustice didn’t end with her death.

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

But Maria’s story is not an isolated tragedy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The family, alongside advocates, is urging Congress to:

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

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

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

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

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

Legal Disclaimer

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

Contact

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

 

Resources and References

Legal Statutes

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