Category: Spotlight

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

 

 

 

A Marine’s Right to Be Heard: Why the Supreme Court Must Consider Fairness in Veteran Compensation Cases

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Story of Simon Soto

Simon Soto is a Marine who served in one of the toughest jobs imaginable—recovering and identifying the remains of fallen service members in Iraq. After returning home, he struggled with PTSD and was medically retired in 2006.

Years later, he learned he qualified for Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC)—a benefit Congress created to support veterans whose injuries are tied to combat. But his claim was denied. Why? Because he applied more than six years after retirement.

That’s the heart of Soto v. United States, now before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Fairness Question

Under a law called the Tucker Act (28 U.S.C. § 2501), there’s a six-year deadline to file certain claims for money against the federal government. But CRSC is not a typical lawsuit—it’s a benefit owed to combat-wounded veterans. So the big legal question is:

Does this six-year rule apply to CRSC?

And more importantly:

Is it fair to deny benefits to veterans who were too traumatized—or unaware—to apply on time?

“Deadlines have their place in the law,” says David P. Sheldon, founding attorney of the firm.
“But when those deadlines deny justice to veterans suffering invisible wounds, the law must make room for fairness.”

Why SCOTUS Is Listening—and What Came Before

The Supreme Court recently ruled in Arellano v. McDonough (2023) that equitable tolling does not apply to certain veterans’ disability benefits. That decision upheld a one-year filing deadline, emphasizing that Congress had already written clear limits into the law.

But Soto is different.

Soto argues that his claim falls under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a, a law that provides CRSC and its own process for approval—meaning it may not be governed by the Tucker Act’s six-year limit at all.

And that distinction could make all the difference.

Other Cases That Matter

  • In Irwin v. VA (1990), the Court held that time limits in lawsuits against the government can be extended in special situations—like illness or lack of access.
  • In Menominee Tribe v. U.S. (2016), the Court clarified that equitable tolling requires both diligence and extraordinary circumstances.
  • In Bailey v. West (1998), the Federal Circuit emphasized a “sympathetic reading” standard for veterans’ claims—highlighting the need for flexibility in interpreting rules.

 What’s at Stake

If the Court rules against Simon Soto, it could shut out thousands of other veterans whose claims were late—but valid. If it rules for him, it will open a path for those who were unaware, misled, or too mentally unwell to act in time.

According to attorney David Sheldon, “this isn’t just about one Marine. It’s about whether the legal system honors the sacrifices made by all service members and whether the clock should ever run out on justice.”

 About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a nationally recognized law firm focused on federal and military law. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees across the country, advocating for justice in matters of discharge upgrades, medical retirements, courts-martial, and benefits appeals. Learn more at www.militarydefense.com.

Legal Disclaimer:
This opinion is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. If you are a service member or veteran facing a legal issue, consult with an attorney who specializes in military or federal law.

Legal References & Sources

Combat-Related Special Compensation (10 U.S.C. § 1413a)

Tucker Act Statute of Limitations (28 U.S.C. § 2501)

Arellano v. McDonough (2023) – Supreme Court Opinion (PDF)

Irwin v. Department of Veterans Affairs (1990)

Menominee Tribe v. United States (2016)

Bailey v. West (1998) – Case Text

DOJ Brief in Soto v. United States (Feb 2025)

 

Disappearance of FOIA Records and the Untold Story of Bureaucratic Delays

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Records Disappear: The Fight for Truth in the Military FOIA System

The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) was established to ensure transparency within federal agencies. However, systemic issues within the Department of Defense (DoD) have led to delays, incomplete disclosures, and, in some cases, the outright denial of information. These shortcomings have profound implications, especially for service members seeking justice or clarity regarding their records.​

A Veteran’s Perspective

Linda L. Tiller, a Senior Litigation Paralegal at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, brings a unique perspective to this issue. With over 40 years of experience, including two decades with the Office of the Judge Advocate General, Appellate Defense Division, Tiller has witnessed firsthand the challenges within the FOIA process.​

She recalls:​

“Many government agencies don’t have preservation measures in place. I remember being told we had to save everything regarding a particular case; we had people scouring computer files, but nobody could figure out how to search the metadata, so in the end, it was deemed good enough. Agencies search where it should be, but that’s it. We were even encouraged to avoid emailing and have meetings or phone calls. Emails leave a paper trail. FOIA is the art of denying everything.”​

Tiller’s insights shed light on the systemic issues that hinder transparency and accountability within the DoD where service members are trying to solve a puzzle where critical information is missing. Many service members feel lost trying to get information from the Department of Defense (DoD) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) where they are unable to get complete transparency, all of the records, and the full picture of their military records.​

A Father’s Quest for Truth

Take the story of Private First Class LaVena Johnson. She was a bright young soldier from Missouri, full of dreams and dedication. In 2005, while serving in Iraq, LaVena was found dead. The Army ruled it a suicide. But when her father, Dr. John Johnson, saw her body, he noticed injuries that didn’t align with that conclusion. He wanted answers. He filed FOIA requests to get the investigation records. The process was slow and frustrating. Important details were missing or withheld. Dr. Johnson felt like the system was keeping him from the truth about his daughter’s death.​

The Bigger Picture

LaVena’s story isn’t unique. Many service members and their families face similar challenges. They request records to understand decisions that affect their lives—like medical discharges, disciplinary actions, or benefits—but often encounter delays or incomplete information.

In some cases, officials have used apps like Signal to discuss military operations. These apps can delete messages automatically, making it hard to keep records. This practice raises concerns about transparency and accountability.​

Why It Matters

When the DoD doesn’t provide complete information, it can impact legal cases, benefits, and trust in the system. Service members deserve transparency. They’ve given their all for the country; the least they should expect is honesty and openness in return.​

Taking Action

If you’ve filed a FOIA request with the DoD and haven’t received a full response, you’re not alone. A group is organizing a Writ of Mandamus—a legal action to compel the DoD to fulfill its FOIA obligations. By joining, you can help push for the transparency that service members and their families deserve.​

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 establish an attorney-client relationship. If you need legal representation or assistance with a FOIA request, please contact a licensed attorney.

Sources

Colorado’s SB25-279: What Service Members Need to Know About This Pending Military Justice Bill

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Colorado’s SB25-279: What Service Members Need to Know About This Pending Military Justice Bill

If you’re a service member living or training in Colorado, there’s a bill being reviewed right now that you should know about. It’s called Senate Bill 25-279, or SB25-279, and while it hasn’t been signed into law yet, it’s making its way through the Colorado Legislature.

So, what’s it about?

This bill would change how Colorado handles military justice for its National Guard and other state military forces. Right now, if a civilian district attorney decides not to press felony charges against a service member, that might be the end of it, at least on the civilian side. But under SB25-279, the state’s military leadership could still take action. That means you could face a court-martial through the state military system, even if the local DA says “no thanks” to filing charges.

That’s a big deal.

Even though this bill wouldn’t change federal law, it would bring Colorado’s state military code in line with the federal Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The idea is to give Colorado’s military forces more tools to handle offenses internally. It would also expand what commanding officers in the state can do when it comes to punishment and discipline.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t law yet. It’s still a pending bill, and the Governor hasn’t signed anything. Until then, it’s just something lawmakers are debating. But if it does pass, it will start affecting military members on September 1, 2025 unless it’s challenged by voters in a future election​.

So, who does this apply to?

If you’re in the Colorado National Guard or another state military force, and you’re not on federal active duty orders (like Title 10), this bill would apply to you. It doesn’t matter if your home of record is in another state. If you’re serving in Colorado under state orders, then Colorado’s rules are the ones you need to follow.

And if you’re thinking, “Well, I’m on state duty, but I didn’t know I could be court-martialed by the state?” this is exactly why service members need to stay informed. Legal rules can shift fast, and what you thought only applied to the federal side might now apply at the state level too.

At The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we represent service members across the country in both federal and military legal matters. While we’re not based in Colorado, we’re committed to helping military members stay up to date on new laws and policies like SB25-279 that could seriously impact your rights and career.

If you’re serving in Colorado and you’re unsure how this could affect you or if you’re facing legal concerns already it’s a good idea to speak with a military defense attorney who understands both the federal and state systems.

While it is important to follow the military rules and regional laws, it is also important to understand how the laws apply differently in regional justice and military systems.  SB-279 is one example of how the state is looking to update their states military judicial systems as it applies to service members in their state.

 About Us:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, DC-based law firm that practices military and federal law nationwide. We provide legal defense and representation to service members in courts-martial, administrative hearings, and federal litigation. Our mission is to defend the rights of those who serve, wherever they serve.

Contact Us: www.militarydefense.com | (202) 546-9575

 

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only. It is not legal advice and does not form an attorney-client relationship.

The Rank That Ruined Him: When Command Influence Crosses the Line

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Rank That Ruined Him: When Command Influence Crosses the Line

It starts, sometimes, with something as ordinary as a handshake or a shared laugh on temporary duty.

For one West Point cadet, young, driven, and following the rules and it started on a trip to Hilo, Hawaii. Her superior officer, Col. William Wright, was not just a respected leader, he was her leader. She couldn’t have known then that his words, actions, and decisions would derail more than just trust in the system. They could have cost her everything.

Col. Wright, formerly director of the Geospatial Information Science Program at the U.S. Military Academy, faced charges for allegedly supplying alcohol to a cadet and making sexual comments during official travel. The legal saga that followed twisted through procedural delays and jurisdictional disputes,  until a military judge dismissed the case with prejudice in April 2025 due to a flawed retirement revocation and improper jurisdiction.

Legally, it’s over for Col. Wright.

But for the cadet at the center of it, justice likely never began.

The Problem: Power Without Accountability

One of the problems with how the military handles fraternization and undue command influence is the public often only hears the names of commanders involved. Rarely do they hear from the junior service members left reeling, often alone and punished by a system that pretends power dynamics are neutral.

Fraternization is not simply about who fraternized with whom, it’s about who had power, who controlled the situation, and who paid the price.

 When “Mentorship” Masks Manipulation

In case after case, we see this imbalance play out: a commander misuses their position under the guise of mentorship or familiarity. A junior enlisted soldier or cadet, trained to follow orders and show respect, tries to navigate an impossible terrain where saying “no” may risk retaliation, evaluation damage, or alienation in their unit.

But when the relationship crosses a line?

It’s the young service member, not the senior officer, who often faces:

  • Article 15 punishment
  • Administrative separation
  • Loss of benefits
  • In some cases, court-martial

Consent Is Complicated When Command Holds the Pen

Under UCMJ Article 134, fraternization is punishable because it risks good order and discipline. But legal nuance matters, and it’s time the military justice system reckons with the fact that true consent cannot exist in an environment dominated by command authority.

In any civilian court, power imbalance is often a mitigating or even exculpatory factor. The military must apply the same standard.

“If a young service member is told by their O-6 commander that they’re ‘special,’ or encouraged to spend time off-duty, or placed in isolated professional situations — the system must ask not what they did, but what choice they realistically had.”  David P. Sheldon, Founding Attorney

Article 37 of the UCMJ was created to prevent command interference in legal proceedings, yet it is almost never invoked in fraternization cases involving grooming or coercion. It should be.

What’s at Stake When the Law Gets It Wrong

The cadet in the Wright case has not been publicly named, rightly so. But it’s not hard to imagine what could have happened had procedural technicalities not derailed the charges.

If the command chose to protect itself…
If jurisdictional flaws hadn’t intervened…
If institutional preservation outweighed truth…

…the cadet’s career could have been extinguished.

Military careers don’t just end — they unravel.

  • A flagged file
  • Denied re-enlistment
  • Revoked GI Bill
  • Student loan repayment lost
  • A hollow DD-214 in place of retirement
  • And the mental toll? Lifelong

Let the Legal Burden Match the Rank

This isn’t about condemning all commanders. It’s about accountability and proportional justice.

“When officers cross the line, the weight of that misconduct shouldn’t fall on the shoulders of the most vulnerable. Let’s stop pretending rank doesn’t matter in relationships. Let the law and the culture evolve.”  David P. Sheldon, Military and Federal Defense Attorney

Because sometimes, a single compliment can cost a cadet everything. And sometimes, the wrong uniform walks away untouched.

Citation

Military Times, “West Point colonel’s court-martial dismissed over retirement revocation issue”, April 5, 2025. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/2025/04/05

 About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, based in Washington, DC, is a premier military and federal employment law firm. The firm represents service members and federal employees in complex matters ranging from court-martials and administrative separation to medical retirement, security clearance revocations, and appeals before the Boards for Correction of Military Records.

With over 30 years of experience, David P. Sheldon and his team fight for those who serve, protecting rights, restoring dignity, and pursuing justice across all branches.

www.militarydefense.com
100 M Street SE, Suite 600, Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546-9575

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 military, consult a qualified attorney experienced in UCMJ and federal employment law.

Air Force Rescinds Family Days: Why Staying Current with Policy Matters More Than Ever

Posted on by Becky Haugen

As of April 9, 2025, the U.S. Air Force officially rescinded its standardized Family Days policy, giving unit commanders broader discretion in determining when time off can be granted. While this change may seem administrative, it underscores a critical legal point: discretionary leave is not entitlement and misunderstanding that distinction can put your career at risk.

Discretionary Time vs. Enforceable Policy

Discretionary leave, such as Family Days, has always been subject to command approval and operational needs. The rescinded policy clarifies that such days are no longer assumed or scheduled service wide. Commanders now tailor off-duty time based on local mission demands, which means past practices do not guarantee future time off.

This shift has serious implications for accountability and accurate time reporting. Service members must be vigilant in confirming their current leave status. Assuming time off is authorized based on outdated calendars or informal expectations can lead to misreporting service, potentially opening the door to administrative action or punitive measures.

When Misunderstanding Becomes Misconduct

There have been cases where discretionary time, once understood to be granted, was later deemed unauthorized under a revised interpretation or policy. In such cases, a service member who inaccurately reports duty status, intentionally or not, can be exposed to disciplinary proceedings, including loss of rank, benefits, or even separation from service.

These outcomes underscore a fundamental point in military law: policy is enforceable only as it currently stands and not as it was previously applied. Even well-meaning errors in understanding leave authorization can be construed as dereliction or falsification under the UCMJ if the service member fails to follow proper verification procedures.

What You Should Do

  1. Confirm Leave Approval – Always ensure leave is documented and approved through official channels.
  2. Stay Informed – Monitor command communications and policy updates through verified sources.
  3. Document Everything – Keep written confirmation of any discretionary time granted by your command.
  4. Seek Legal Guidance – If your leave status is in dispute or you’re facing administrative action, consult with a qualified military defense attorney immediately.

At The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we have successfully defended service members facing complex and high-stakes administrative and disciplinary actions. We understand the nuances of military policy changes and how they impact your rights, rank, and retirement.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
Based in Washington, D.C., our firm is nationally recognized for its legal defense of service members across all branches of the military. From courts-martial and administrative separation to MEB/PEB hearings and wrongful discharge claims, we defend the rights and careers of those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com
Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

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.

Fighting for What You’ve Earned: How to Defend Your Disability and Retirement Rights in the MEB/PEB Process

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The MEB/PEB Process Isn’t Just Paperwork—It’s Your Future. Here’s How to Protect It.

When you’ve served your country with honor, you deserve a fair and compassionate process when facing a medical retirement. But too often, the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) process feels anything but fair. That’s why defending your rights isn’t just about checking boxes—it’s about ensuring your future is secure.

The Process: What’s at Stake

The MEB/PEB process determines whether you are fit for duty and, if not, the level of disability compensation to which you are entitled. The decisions made during this process affect:

  • Whether you are separated or medically retired
  • The amount of disability pay you receive (or don’t)
  • Your eligibility for TRICARE, commissary privileges, and other benefits
  • Your ability to transition to VA benefits with the right rating

It’s not just a decision about your health—it’s a decision that can shape your financial security, healthcare access, and family stability for the rest of your life.

When the Rating Is Wrong

Imagine this: after months—sometimes years—of dealing with chronic pain, surgeries, or mental health challenges, you finally reach the end of your service. You expect a fair assessment. But then the PEB assigns you a 10% rating instead of 50%. That number means the difference between medical separation and a full medical retirement.

Medical separation with a low rating might offer a one-time severance. That’s it. No retirement pay. No continued TRICARE. No permanent disability compensation. And to make it worse, that rating can affect your VA benefits too.

You can appeal, but the window is tight. You’re suddenly faced with legal jargon, deadlines, and a system that doesn’t always explain your options. You’re trying to recover and plan for the next chapter—but now you’re also expected to navigate one of the most complex administrative processes in the military.

Why Legal Support Matters

This is where a skilled attorney can change everything. A legal team with experience in the MEB/PEB system can:

  • Review your medical file for errors or missing documentation
  • Request an Independent Medical Review
  • Build a strong rebuttal for the informal PEB findings
  • Represent you at a formal hearing
  • Fight for the correct disability rating and retirement status
  • Advise you on when and how to transition to VA claims

The process is filled with legal hurdles that are easy to trip over without help. Timelines are short, evidence rules are strict, and appealing a bad decision takes both precision and persistence.

You shouldn’t have to fight this battle alone—especially when you’re already facing the challenges of a disabling condition.

Compassion, Not Complication

You’ve carried out your duties with loyalty and resilience. Now the system should carry out its responsibility with fairness and integrity. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon believes in standing up for those who stood up for all of us. We help ensure the MEB/PEB process doesn’t fail you, and that your rating reflects the true impact of your condition.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Based in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is one of the nation’s leading military and federal defense firms. We represent active duty, reserve, guard, retired, and civilian federal employees across all branches. With decades of experience in military disability, retirement law, and administrative appeals, we guide service members through every step of the MEB/PEB process and beyond—ensuring your service is honored and your rights are protected.

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.

Passport Policy Rollback Could Ground Transgender Troops Providing Additional Barriers to Deploy

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Passport Denials, Deployment Barriers, and Legal Protections: The New Battlefront for LGBTQ+ Service Members

In March 2025, the Trump administration moved to rescind the ability for U.S. citizens to mark “X” as their gender on passports, reversing a 2021 Biden-era policy intended to provide greater inclusivity for transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals 1. The implications go beyond civilian inconvenience. For LGBTQ+ service members, especially those who are transgender or nonbinary, this policy threatens both their identity and their ability to serve.

A Policy Shift with Military Consequences

The State Department’s March 2025 policy change, tied to Executive Order #14001-TR (issued January 20, 2025), discontinues the issuance of passports with a gender-neutral “X” marker 2. While framed as a reversal to restore “biological integrity” in federal documents, the effect for military members is operational: those whose legal identity relies on the “X” designation may now face obstacles to travel and deployment.

Military members require valid passports for:

  • Overseas deployment and stationing
  • Temporary Duty (TDY) assignments
  • Humanitarian or evacuation missions
  • Emergency leave travel

Without a valid passport that reflects their identity or matches DoD records, these service members risk being labeled non-deployable—a classification that can lead to lost promotion opportunities, administrative separation, or early discharge.

A Conflict Between DoD and Federal Civilian Policy

The Department of Defense (DoD), under Instruction 1300.28 (“Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria”), recognizes gender transition and allows service members to update their gender marker in the Defense Enrollment Eligibility Reporting System (DEERS) 3. However, the recent passport policy is not harmonized with DoD’s more inclusive procedures, creating a bureaucratic inconsistency that places transgender troops in administrative limbo.

For example, a service member may have “X” listed on their state ID or previously issued passport but be forced to choose “M” or “F” for federal identification moving forward—an act that could contradict their affirmed identity and violate medical or psychological care protocols.

Legal Pushback: The Courts Step In

On March 22, 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya Chutkan issued a temporary injunction blocking the enforcement of a separate Trump-era policy aimed at banning transgender individuals from serving in the military 4. In her ruling, she emphasized that such a ban likely violates the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and due process, particularly when no rational basis supports singling out transgender individuals for exclusion.

This judicial intervention suggests courts are increasingly willing to scrutinize and stop government actions that impose disproportionate burdens on transgender Americans—including those in uniform.

Actionable Legal Steps for LGBTQ+ Service Members

Here’s what affected service members can and should consider doing:

  1. Document All Passport Issues
    Keep a record of any denied or delayed passport applications, especially if citing gender marker issues. This documentation will be critical if legal action becomes necessary.
  2. Consult with Military or Civilian Counsel
    Legal experts—such as those at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon—can assist in reviewing your rights under military regulations, federal law, and constitutional protections.
  3. File IG or EO Complaints When Appropriate
    Service members facing administrative punishment due to passport complications or identity-related discrimination, they should consider an Inspector General (IG) or Equal Opportunity (EO) complaint, both of which are protected channels under DoD policy.
  4. Know Your Rights Under DoDI 1300.28
    The instruction affirms a service member’s ability to transition, update records, and seek medical care for gender dysphoria. If command resists updates, legal intervention may be warranted.
  5. Join Legal and Advocacy Efforts
    National advocacy groups like SPARTA (for transgender military personnel), Modern Military Association of America, and Lambda Legal are already mobilizing to support legal challenges to the passport policy. Service members may be able to join amicus briefs or class actions.
  6. Coordinate Records Consistency
    Where possible, align gender markers across state IDs, DEERS records, and other federal documents to minimize administrative friction—though this may not fully solve the passport issue under current rules.

Conclusion: Equality Must Be Operational

Military service demands sacrifice and resilience. But it should never demand erasure. If the federal government entrusts LGBTQ+ Americans to defend the nation, it must ensure they can do so with full legal recognition and dignity. The battle for equal service is far from over—but with the courts watching and service members stepping forward, this latest rollback can—and should—be challenged.

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 members 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.

 

If a transgender or nonbinary military member cannot get a passport that reflects their identity or matches their DoD records, they may be:

  • Labeled non-deployable
  • Removed from overseas assignments
  • Or barred from promotion or certain career tracks due to their inability to fulfill global service requirements

References

  1. S. Department of State, “Gender Designation on U.S. Passports,” Bureau of Consular Affairs, 2021. ↩
  2. Executive Order #14001-TR, “Restoring Biological Standards in Federal Identification,” Office of the President, Jan. 20, 2025. ↩
  3. Department of Defense Instruction 1300.28, “Military Service by Transgender Persons and Persons with Gender Dysphoria,” revised 2022. ↩
  4. Doe v. Department of Defense, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 25-cv-00418, March 22, 2025. ↩

 

Securing Medical Retirement: Navigating MEB, Disability Ratings, and the Fight for Full Benefits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a service member or federal employee is forced to medically retire, the battle is often just beginning. What should be a medically supported transition can quickly turn into an administrative nightmare—especially when the disability rating assigned by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) doesn’t reflect the full extent of their service-connected conditions.

The 30% and 50% Thresholds: More Than Just Numbers

For military personnel, a disability rating below 30% at separation can mean being cut off from full military retirement and healthcare benefits—even while the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may assign a much higher rating for the same condition.

Even more critically, those medically retiring after 20 years of service need a minimum VA disability rating of 50% to receive Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP)—the ability to collect both retirement and disability benefits in full. Anything less results in an offset that significantly reduces long-term financial security.

“For service members approaching medical retirement, achieving a 50% VA rating is absolutely crucial if they want to access concurrent retirement and disability benefits,” says Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Counsel at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “That rating threshold can mean the difference between a full pension and a lifetime of lost entitlements.”

Morgan emphasizes the importance of including all physical and mental health conditions in one’s VA claim, along with detailed, service-connected documentation and the use of specific language that aligns with VA criteria.

The Fallout of an Inaccurate Rating

Too often, service members are rushed out of service with a DOD disability rating that doesn’t align with the medical evidence or the VA’s later determination. A recent Stars and Stripes report revealed widespread inconsistencies in how the Department of Defense and the VA assign disability ratings, particularly for combat-wounded veterans:

“A review of cases by The Associated Press found that some combat-injured troops received low DOD ratings despite severe conditions later rated at 70% or higher by the VA.”

— Stars and Stripes, March 21, 2025
Read full article

These discrepancies leave veterans without the retirement they earned and push them into lengthy appeals or corrections through the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

Legal Support Can Make the Difference

This is where the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon can make a critical difference. As one of the nation’s premier military defense and administrative law firms, the firm has extensive experience representing service members and federal employees at every stage of the medical retirement process.

Whether you’re:

  • Challenging a low disability rating from the MEB or PEB
  • Filing a VA disability appeal to maximize your rating
  • Requesting a correction through the BCMR to secure retirement pay retroactively
  • Protecting your security clearance while undergoing medical retirement
  • Or seeking medical retirement as a federal civilian employee

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon brings decades of experience to your side. The firm has secured life-changing results for clients who were improperly separated or mis-rated, restoring retirement benefits, back pay, and dignity.

Steps You Can Take Right Now

  1. Document Every Condition. Make sure all medical issues—especially mental health—are recorded in your military or federal medical file.
  2. File a Detailed VA Claim. Include every diagnosis, symptom, and its impact on your ability to work or perform daily tasks. Use specific language tied to VA rating criteria.
  3. Don’t Rush Retirement. If you’re close to hitting 20 years, make every effort to reach that threshold. It significantly changes your eligibility for benefits.
  4. Push Back Against Low Ratings. Appeal decisions from both the VA and the DOD if they do not reflect your medical reality. You have legal rights to challenge those outcomes.
  5. Seek Experienced Legal Counsel. Navigating the MEB, VA system, and BCMR is incredibly complex—having a team that specializes in these areas can maximize your outcome.

Final Thoughts

Medical retirement is more than a paperwork process—it’s the final chapter in your military or federal career, and it deserves the full weight of accuracy, fairness, and advocacy. If your service has come at the cost of your health, don’t settle for less than the benefits you earned. Get the right support, fight for the correct rating, and ensure your retirement reflects your sacrifice.

Key Resources

  • VA Disability Compensation Overview
  • Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP)
  • DoD Disability Evaluation System (DES) Guide
  • Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) Process

📎 Learn more: https://www.militarydefense.com
📞 Schedule a consultation: 202-546-9575

Disclaimer:

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