Category: Firm News

Commissioning Restored: Legal Advocacy Secures Future for Disenrolled ROTC Cadet

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a promising ROTC cadet faced sudden disenrollment just days before his scheduled commissioning and college graduation, it nearly derailed years of dedication, training, and commitment to military service. But with the support of his family and the swift intervention of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC, justice prevailed.

This case, led by Attorney David P. Sheldon, is a reminder of the stakes involved when ROTC disenrollment actions occur without a full and fair understanding of the facts. And more importantly, it demonstrates how legal support can make the difference between a lost opportunity and a restored future.

“The Law Office of David Sheldon is nothing short of responsive, professional, and deeply committed when it comes to representing their clients,” shared the cadet’s mother. “Thanks to Mr. Sheldon and his team, our son was given back his chance to serve.”

A Misjudged Moment with Major Consequences

The cadet had a long-standing record of strong academic performance, demonstrated leadership, and unwavering commitment to his service branch. However, in the final week before commissioning, a procedural misunderstanding and a misinterpretation of events led his detachment to pursue disenrollment based on concerns that did not reflect his true conduct or character.

Without legal intervention, these types of allegations, especially when raised so close to graduation can lead to devastating outcomes. In this case, the cadet’s future service, graduation standing, and career trajectory were all placed at risk.

“They listened to us, answered every question, and most importantly, they believed in our son when others didn’t,” said the cadet’s mother.

Standing Up for Integrity, Due Process, and Leadership Potential

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon worked quickly to ensure the cadet’s record and intentions were accurately represented. Through a combination of legal advocacy, supporting testimony, and thorough documentation, the firm ensured that his conduct was reviewed in full context.

Multiple community members and mentors provided strong character references, attesting to the cadet’s fitness for service and his long-standing desire to serve his country. These efforts helped create a balanced view that ultimately enabled ROTC leadership to revisit their decision.

“This was never about just fixing a mistake,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon. “It was about ensuring that a capable and committed future officer was not denied his rightful opportunity to serve based on an incomplete or unfair process.”

The Outcome: Commissioning Achieved, Future Secured

Although the cadet was unable to commission on his originally scheduled date, the firm’s legal efforts led to a reversal within 48 hours. He officially entered active duty just days later and now serves proudly in the U.S. Air Force.

This case stands as a powerful reminder: disenrollment decisions—especially those made under pressure or without full context—must be carefully examined. Cadets and their families should know that they have the right to contest those decisions, and that competent legal counsel can make all the difference.

“Justice was served,” the family shared. “Thanks to this team, our son is fulfilling his dream and wearing the uniform with pride.”

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