Category: Firm News

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

 

 

 

Air Force Civilian Paid Significant Multi Six Figure Settlement and Six Figure Attorneys’ Fees to Resolve Discrimination Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Secures Just Resolution Following EEOC Sign-Off

Washington, D.C. – April 18, 2025 — A federal civilian employee of the United States Air Force has reached a confidential settlement in a workplace discrimination case after the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) approved the agreement and formally dismissed the complaint with prejudice on April 16, 2025​.

The resolution followed a thorough and iterative review process by the EEOC administrative judge, who requested updates to the agreement language before ultimately granting approval. The complainant, an African American senior-ranking civilian employee, had alleged a hostile and discriminatory work environment stemming from repeated incidents involving her immediate supervisor. Claims included harassment on the basis of race and age, bullying, intimidation, and the creation of a toxic work environment​.

Annie Morgan, Senior Military Attorney with the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, represented the complainant throughout the proceedings. “This settlement represents a meaningful conclusion to a deeply distressing chapter in our client’s federal service,” said Morgan. “She showed incredible courage by coming forward and asserting her rights. We are proud to have helped her obtain justice and preserve her professional reputation.”

The terms of the agreement include both a six-figure monetary compensation including reimbursement of attorney fees and restoration by various specific administrative remedies to be applied by the Air Force. In addition, the agreement includes provisions that support transparency and post-resolution compliance monitoring, ensuring the complainant’s dignity and rights are fully restored​.

While the exact financial terms of the settlement are confidential, the judge has issued a formal dismissal order, closing the case and granting the parties’ joint motion for resolution​.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provides experienced legal representation in military, federal employment, and national security matters. The firm’s attorneys are nationally recognized for their advocacy on behalf of service members, federal employees, and civilians navigating complex legal disputes within government agencies.

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

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. If you or someone you know is facing injustice or abuse of authority within the federal government or military, consult a qualified attorney experienced in UCMJ and federal employment law.

Legal Victory for USPHS Commander Denied DOJ Representation

Posted on by Becky Haugen

WASHINGTON, D.C. (April 14, 2025) – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, a Washington, D.C.-based military and federal employment law firm, announces the successful resolution of a significant case involving a United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Commander who was personally sued for actions taken in the course of his federal duties.

The Commander had signed a lease agreement for a warehouse in furtherance of a government mission. Despite the agency’s approval and continued payment of the lease by the government for over two years, the agency later vacated the property and ceased payments. The property owner filed a personal lawsuit against the Commander in state court.

When the Commander requested legal representation from the Department of Justice (DOJ) under 28 C.F.R. § 50.15, the request was never acted upon. Without the representation to which he was entitled, the Commander was left to defend himself in court and was ultimately held liable.

With legal representation by Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, the Commander filed suit in the United States Court of Federal Claims, asserting the government’s failure to follow required procedures. The case was ultimately resolved through a negotiated settlement, and the matter was dismissed with prejudice, bringing long-overdue closure for the officer and reinforcing the protections owed to federal personnel.

“This case reflects the real-world consequences federal employees face when agencies don’t fulfill their legal obligations,” said attorney Dylan Thayer. “We’re honored to have helped this Commander secure justice.”

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, located in Washington, D.C., defends military service members and federal employees nationwide in both civil and criminal matters. The firm has decades of experience handling courts-martial, administrative boards, security clearance cases, and high-stakes federal litigation. Its attorneys are committed to safeguarding the rights of those who serve.

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

 

Disclaimer:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Each case is unique and results may vary depending on specific facts and legal circumstances.

 

 

Over 800 Law Firms Join Forces to Defend Constitutional Advocacy Rights in DOJ Retaliation Case Against Jenner & Block

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon stands in solidarity with 806 other firms nationwide in a sweeping amicus brief filed today in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The brief supports Jenner & Block LLP in its legal challenge against a March 25 Executive Order issued by the current Administration, which imposes punitive sanctions against the firm for its client advocacy work.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, a Washington, D.C.-based litigation firm focused on military and federal law, joined this powerful coalition of law firms who argue the Executive Order represents a “grave threat to the rule of law and our constitutional system of governance”​.

“The retaliation we are witnessing against Jenner & Block—and previously against Perkins Coie, WilmerHale, and others—is nothing less than an abuse of executive power aimed at silencing lawful advocacy,” said David P. Sheldon, founder of the firm. “We are proud to stand with hundreds of our colleagues to affirm that the independence of the bar must not be undermined by political agendas.”

The amicus brief, officially titled Brief of Amici Curiae of 807 Law Firms in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment and for Declaratory and Permanent Injunctive Relief, underscores that the Executive Order:

  • Revokes security clearances from law firm personnel,
  • Denies access to federal facilities and contracts,
  • Allegedly punishes the firm for pro bono activities that “undermine justice and the interests of the United States”​.

Lawyers from across the political and professional spectrum warn that such actions will chill protected First Amendment activities and erode public access to legal representation.

“We’ve reached a constitutional crossroads,” Sheldon said. “If we allow government retribution against law firms based on who they represent, we dismantle the very foundation of equal justice under law.”

This brief follows similar filings in the Perkins Coie and WilmerHale cases and reflects growing concern in the legal community over executive orders targeting law firms based on their client portfolios.

Contact:

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

Legal Disclaimer:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals or organizations seeking legal representation should contact a qualified attorney.

 

Honoring Service: Legal Team Wins Medical Retirement for Dedicated USPHS Officer

Posted on by Becky Haugen

April 4, 2025

Senior Public Health Service Officer Secures Medical Retirement with Legal Representation from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

WASHINGTON, D.C. — A senior officer in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps has successfully obtained a medical retirement following an in-depth review by the Medical Review Board and final approval by the Office of the Surgeon General. The officer was represented by Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

The officer served the nation with distinction for more than a decade, including frontline deployments during public health emergencies. Despite a history of exceptional service, the officer developed service-connected medical conditions that rendered continued service untenable. After a thorough review, the Medical Review Board recommended permanent medical retirement, which was approved with an effective retirement date.

Annie Morgan, the officer’s legal representative, praised the outcome:

“This result reflects both the strength of our client’s record and the importance of advocating for the rights of officers who can no longer serve due to medical conditions that they incurred while in service. We’re proud to stand beside those who’ve sacrificed their health in service to this country.”

This case marks yet another success for the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, which is nationally recognized for representing USPHS members, service members, officers, and federal employees in complex legal and administrative matters, including medical retirement, disability evaluation, courts-martial, and correction of military records.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military law firm dedicated to defending the rights of U.S. service members and federal employees across all branches and uniformed services. The firm specializes in military justice, administrative law, disability and retirement proceedings, and appeals before military and federal courts. Led by founding attorney David P. Sheldon and supported by a team of seasoned litigators, the firm brings decades of experience and an unwavering commitment to justice.

Contact:

Law Offices David P. Sheldon, PLLC
202-546-9575
militarydefense.com

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. Individuals facing legal or administrative challenges should consult with a qualified attorney who is experienced in military and Federal law to receive guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.

 

 

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Federal Judge Finds Army’s Decision Arbitrary, Siding with Plaintiff Represented by Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

WASHINGTON, D.C. — April 3, 2025 — A federal court has sided with a retired Army Reserve officer in her challenge to the Army’s decision to separate her just four months shy of qualifying for military retirement. The case, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, was remanded for further proceedings after U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled that the Army’s reasoning for denying retirement benefits was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The plaintiff, a decorated Lieutenant Colonel with nearly 18 years of honorable service, had sought a modest extension of her service to reach the 20-year retirement threshold. Although her original position was deemed “overstaffed,” she successfully pursued a transfer to an understaffed Civil Affairs unit only to be discharged days before the transfer was finalized.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records unanimously recommended correcting her records to reflect 20 years of service and to award retroactive retirement pay. But in a move the court called confusing and unsupported, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army overruled that recommendation in a single paragraph. The court determined that the Army’s rejection lacked any meaningful explanation and misunderstood key facts in the case.

“This case isn’t just about one soldier, it’s about fairness and accountability in how the Army treats its own,” said Dylan Thayer, the plaintiff’s attorney and partner at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, a D.C.-based firm known for championing military rights. “We’re proud to fight for service members who’ve earned the benefits they were promised.”

The court’s decision sends the matter back to the Army for further review, giving the plaintiff a renewed chance to secure the retirement benefits she should have rightfully received.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is one of the nation’s premier military law firms. With a track record of defending the rights of service members across all branches, the firm handles courts-martial, correction of military records, medical retirement claims, and constitutional rights cases. Visit www.militarydefense.com for more information.

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. Individuals facing legal or administrative challenges should consult with a qualified attorney who is experienced in military and Federal law to receive guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.