Category: Spotlight

Why Service Members Must Take Control of Their Discharge Story Before It’s Too Late

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a service member leaves the military, the final paperwork does more than close a chapter, it defines what comes next. Benefits, healthcare, employment, dignity, and recognition of sacrifice all hinge on what is written, or omitted, in those final records.

A 2025 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office makes one thing clear: the system designed to review and correct discharge decisions is inconsistent, often unclear, and heavily dependent on documentation that may never have been properly recorded in the first place.

That reality places a burden where it should never have been, on the service member to ensure their story is preserved before separation.

A System Built on Records—Even When Records Are Incomplete

The military discharge process is not simply administrative. It is evidentiary.

According to GAO-25-107354, service members who receive anything less than an honorable discharge may face lasting barriers to employment, healthcare, and earned benefits.

While review boards exist to correct injustices, the GAO found:

  • Inconsistent application of standards across branches
  • Uneven consideration of PTSD, TBI, and military sexual trauma
  • Limited explanation of decisions
  • Delays and unpredictable timelines

Between 2018 and 2024, more than 21,000 discharge upgrade cases were reviewed, with approval rates ranging widely from 18% to 49%.

This is not just a gap in process. It is a gap in certainty.

The Most Dangerous Gap: What Never Gets Documented

For many service members, the greatest risk is not what happened in service, but what was never written down.

Injury is minimized. Symptoms are pushed aside. Trauma is endured silently.

But discharge boards rely heavily on existing documentation, service treatment records, personnel files, and VA records. If those records are incomplete, the system rarely fills in the gaps.

That means:

  • Late diagnoses carry less weight
  • Personal statements may be discounted without corroboration
  • Behavioral issues tied to trauma may be judged without context

Your record becomes your voice. And silence in that record can follow you for decades.

Your Rights in the Discharge Process

  1. The Right to Accurate Medical Documentation

You have the right to seek medical evaluation and ensure all conditions are documented before separation.

This includes:

  • Physical injuries
  • Mental health conditions such as PTSD or anxiety
  • Chronic or recurring pain

Without documentation, these conditions may not be considered later, even if they are service-related.

  1. The Right to Raise Contributing Conditions

Department of Defense policy requires “liberal consideration” for cases involving trauma or mental health.

But the GAO found this standard is not consistently applied.

That means you must:

  • Document the condition
  • Connect it clearly to service
  • Ensure it is reflected in your official records

 

  1. The Right to Access and Retain Your Records

Before separation, every service member should obtain:

  • DD Form 214 (review carefully before signing)
  • Complete service treatment records
  • Full personnel file

Do not assume these records will be preserved accurately or be easy to retrieve later.

  1. The Right to Challenge an Unjust Discharge

You may apply to:

  • Discharge Review Boards (within 15 years)
  • Boards for Correction of Military Records

But GAO findings confirm:

  • Outcomes vary widely
  • Timelines are inconsistent
  • Decisions are not always clearly explained

Correction is possible, but it is not predictable.

The Reality: Build Your Record Before You Need It

The lesson is simple, and urgent:

Do not wait.

Document injuries. Report symptoms. Request evaluations. Review your records.

Because once you leave service, you are no longer building your record, you are trying to overcome it.

And the system does not make that easy.

Every service member carries a story of service and sacrifice.

But the system does not preserve stories. It preserves records.

And in the end, it is the record, not the memory, that determines what comes next.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, represents military service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide. The firm focuses on military justice, discharge upgrades, medical retirement, security clearance defense, and federal employment rights, advocating for those who serve.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and individuals should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

Why Retired JAGs Are Warning Against Mission Creep

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Across generations of American law, one principle has remained remarkably consistent: the military does not enforce civilian law.

It is a boundary rooted in the Constitution, reinforced by statute, and preserved by professional norms within the armed forces. When retired Judge Advocates raise concerns that military lawyers are being reassigned to prosecute non-military offenses, they are not simply debating bureaucratic policy. They are warning about the erosion of a structural safeguard in American democracy.

Their concerns deserve careful attention.

The Traditional Role of the JAG Corps

Judge Advocates occupy a unique position in the American legal system. They serve simultaneously as commissioned officers and attorneys bound by professional ethical obligations. Their responsibilities historically center on advising commanders on military operations and the law of armed conflict, prosecuting and defending cases under the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and protecting the legal rights of service members.

The JAG Corps exists to serve the military justice system. Its core purpose is to support commanders and ensure the fair administration of justice for those serving in uniform.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice reflects that limited jurisdiction. In most circumstances it governs service members, reservists on active duty, and in rare circumstances civilians accompanying forces during wartime. It does not serve as a vehicle for prosecuting ordinary civilian crimes.

Expanding the role of military lawyers beyond that framework raises fundamental legal and constitutional questions.

The Legal Boundary Between Military and Civilian Law Enforcement

At the center of this debate lies one of the most important but frequently misunderstood statutes in American law: the Posse Comitatus Act.

Passed in 1878, the law restricts the use of federal military forces in civilian law enforcement unless expressly authorized by Congress or the Constitution. The statute reflects a deep historical concern about the dangers of military power being used to enforce domestic law.

The United States has traditionally maintained a clear division between military authority and civilian policing. While the military may provide logistical support or technical assistance to civilian agencies in certain circumstances, direct law enforcement functions have historically remained outside its mission.

This separation protects both institutions. Civilian law enforcement remains accountable to civilian courts and communities, while the military remains focused on national defense.

When military lawyers are reassigned to prosecute civilian cases, the line between these two systems begins to blur.

A Legal Gray Area

The legal picture becomes more complicated when military attorneys are temporarily detailed to civilian agencies.

For decades, some Judge Advocates have served as Special Assistant U.S. Attorneys for cases involving crimes committed on military installations or involving service members. Congress eventually authorized such arrangements after concerns arose that these assignments might otherwise conflict with statutory restrictions on military involvement in civilian law enforcement.

But critics argue that current proposals extend far beyond those limited exceptions.

When military attorneys are assigned to prosecute purely civilian crimes or adjudicate immigration matters unrelated to military service, the connection to military jurisdiction becomes increasingly difficult to justify. Even where legal technicalities may allow such assignments, critics warn that the broader constitutional principles behind the Posse Comitatus Act are being stretched.

This is the concern often described as mission creep.

Why Former JAGs Are Speaking Out

Retired Judge Advocates rarely enter public policy debates without serious cause. Their warnings in this context reflect institutional concerns developed through decades of experience inside the military justice system.

Their objections generally fall into three areas.

Civilian Justice Should Remain Civilian

The American legal system is structured around civilian courts enforcing civilian laws. When military officers begin prosecuting ordinary crimes or participating in civilian adjudication, that structural distinction begins to erode.

Even if legally authorized under narrow exceptions, the perception of military involvement in domestic law enforcement can undermine public trust in both institutions.

Military Readiness and Legal Expertise

Judge Advocates already carry significant responsibilities inside the armed forces. They advise commanders on operational law, train troops on legal compliance during military operations, and manage complex court-martial litigation.

Diverting those attorneys into civilian prosecutions risks weakening the military justice system itself.

Civil–Military Balance

Perhaps the most significant concern raised by former military lawyers is constitutional.

American democracy has long guarded against the militarization of domestic governance. The separation between civilian authority and military power protects both the legitimacy of the armed forces and the independence of civilian legal institutions.

The military’s legitimacy depends in part on remaining outside the political and prosecutorial functions of civilian government.

When those roles begin to overlap, even for administrative convenience, the balance that has existed for generations becomes less certain.

A Question of Prudence

Even if some uses of military attorneys could be justified under statutory exceptions or temporary assignments, legality alone does not resolve the question.

The deeper issue is institutional prudence.

Should the military justice system be used to supplement civilian prosecutorial resources?

History suggests caution.

The legal framework that separates military authority from civilian law enforcement did not arise accidentally. It developed through experience and through deliberate legislative choices meant to prevent the concentration of power in military institutions.

Retired Judge Advocates raising concerns today are drawing on that history.

Their warning is not merely about statutory interpretation. It is about protecting the integrity of both the military justice system and civilian courts.

The Stakes for Service Members

For service members themselves, the issue carries additional significance.

Judge Advocates serve as both prosecutors and defenders within the military justice system. They advise commanders, protect the rights of the accused, and ensure that the UCMJ is applied fairly.

If those legal professionals are increasingly diverted into civilian enforcement roles, the system designed to safeguard service members could face resource pressures that weaken its effectiveness.

Military justice exists to ensure fairness and discipline within the armed forces. Diluting that mission risks unintended consequences for those who serve.

A Line Worth Defending

For more than a century, American law has drawn a careful line between military power and civilian law enforcement.

The Posse Comitatus Act, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and the traditions of the Judge Advocate General’s Corps all reflect the same principle: the military defends the nation, while civilian institutions enforce the law.

When those roles begin to merge, even for practical reasons, the implications extend beyond administrative convenience.

They touch on the balance between military authority and civilian governance that defines the American constitutional system.

That is why retired Judge Advocates are raising concerns.

And why policymakers would be wise to consider the warning carefully.

References and Citations

Stars and Stripes. “Retired JAGs Question Use of Military Lawyers to Prosecute Non-Military Crimes.” March 10, 2026.

Posse Comitatus Act, 18 U.S.C. § 1385.

Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. §§ 801–946.

U.S. Department of Defense Directive 5525.5, DoD Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Officials.

Brennan Center for Justice. “The Posse Comitatus Act Explained.”

National Immigration Law Center. “FAQ on the Use of the Military for Immigration Enforcement.”

American Immigration Council. “Military Lawyers Serving as Immigration Judges: Legal Concerns.”

U.S. Supreme Court. Solorio v. United States, 483 U.S. 435 (1987).

U.S. Supreme Court. Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957).

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and commentary purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The opinions expressed are intended to contribute to discussion on issues affecting military justice, civil-military relations, and the rights of those who serve. Individuals seeking legal advice should consult a qualified attorney regarding their specific circumstances.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in matters involving military justice, security clearance defense, administrative boards, federal employment law, and constitutional rights. The firm advocates for those who serve the nation in uniform and in federal service.

VA Form 21P-535 Parents Dependency and Indemnity Compensation VA DIC Parents Benefits VA Accrued Benefits Parents PACT Act Survivor Claims Military Survivor Benefits Parents VA Claims After Service Member Death

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Parent's Claim for Service Member's Death

When the Call Comes: What Parents of Service Members Need to Know About Their Rights After a Death

There is no script for the moment a parent learns their child has died in service to the country.

For some families, the loss comes suddenly, an accident during training, a medical emergency overseas, an unexpected collapse stateside. For others, it comes slowly, years after service, following illnesses tied to toxic exposure, delayed diagnoses, or conditions that were never fully acknowledged while their child was alive. In both cases, parents are often left in the same place: grieving, overwhelmed, and uncertain whether the law recognizes them at all.

What many parents do not realize is that federal law does recognize them, not symbolically, but legally.

Under the Department of Veterans Affairs’ own framework, parents of deceased service members may have independent standing to file claims for benefits, including Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and unpaid benefits owed to their child at the time of death. This is true whether the service member served in an armed role or in one of the unarmed uniformed services, including the U.S. Public Health Service and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

But those rights exist only if parents know how, and when, to assert them.

Parents Are Not Just Survivors. They Can Be Claimants.

VA law does not treat parents merely as secondary witnesses to a service member’s life. In specific circumstances, it recognizes them as claimants in their own right.

A parent may file a claim when a service member dies during active service or dies as a result of a service-connected condition. The VA’s own application form for parents makes clear that two distinct forms of relief may be available. First, Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, a monthly benefit paid to eligible parents. Second, accrued benefits, which are any amounts the VA owed the service member but did not pay before death.

Critically, if a parent applies for one of these benefits, the law requires the VA to consider entitlement to the other automatically. Parents do not need to know the precise legal theory at the outset. Filing opens the door to both.

Yet many parents never file at all, because they assume the system is designed only for spouses or children.

Armed and Unarmed Service Count the Same

The law does not distinguish between grief that comes from an armed role and grief that comes from an unarmed one.

Parents of service members who served in the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, or Coast Guard are covered. So too are parents of commissioned officers in the U.S. Public Health Service and NOAA. The VA explicitly includes these unarmed uniformed services within its definition of qualifying service, particularly when death occurs in service or results from service-connected conditions.

For families of USPHS and NOAA officers, this recognition is especially important. These service members are often excluded from public narratives about military sacrifice, even though their exposure risks, deployment conditions, and long-term health consequences may be just as severe.

Who the Law Considers a “Parent”

The VA’s definition of a parent is broader, and more complex, than many families expect.

A parent may be biological or adoptive. Foster parents may also qualify, but only if they stood in the role of a parent for at least one year before the service member’s last entry into active service, and only if that parental relationship began before the service member turned 21.

Even then, the VA recognizes only one parent for payment purposes. In families marked by divorce, estrangement, remarriage, or informal caregiving arrangements, this rule alone can become a source of conflict or denial.

Adding to the complexity, the VA examines not just legal status, but whether the parent exercised “parental control” until the age of majority. If the service member left home early, lived with others, or became self-supporting as a teenager, the parent may be required to explain gaps, transitions, or interruptions in care. These inquiries often reopen painful family histories at a time when parents are least equipped to relive them.

Income, Means Testing, and a Quiet Barrier

Unlike benefits paid to surviving spouses, Parents’ Dependency and Indemnity Compensation is income-based.

The VA counts income from most sources, and if the parent is married and living with a spouse, the spouse’s income is counted as well. Benefit rates and income thresholds change regularly, and the VA does not publish a static, easy-to-follow chart in its application materials.

For many parents, especially retirees or those on fixed incomes, this means eligibility is unclear until well into the claims process. Medical expenses, burial costs, and last-illness expenses may reduce countable income, but only if they are properly documented and submitted. The burden is on the parent to raise these deductions. The VA will not infer them on its own.

The One-Year Deadline That Changes Everything

Timing is not a technicality. It is often decisive.

If a parent files a claim for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation within one year of the service member’s death, benefits may be payable back to the date of death. If the claim is filed after that one-year mark, benefits generally begin only from the date the VA receives the application.

For parents who are grieving, organizing funerals, handling estates, or simply trying to survive the loss of a child, this deadline is easily missed. When it is, the financial consequences can be permanent.

When “Final” Is Not Final: The PACT Act and Re-Adjudication

Some parents were told years ago that they were not eligible. Others received denials that felt definitive and absolute.

In many cases, they were neither.

Under the PACT Act, Congress expanded presumptions for service connection related to toxic exposure and environmental hazards. The law requires the VA to identify previously denied claims affected by these changes and allows eligible survivors, including parents, to elect re-adjudication.

If entitlement is established on re-review, benefits may be awarded as far back as the original claim date. For families whose loved ones died from conditions once dismissed as unrelated to service, this provision is not merely procedural. It is corrective.

Representation, Hearings, and the Right to Be Heard

Parents have the right to representation by an accredited service organization, agent, or attorney. They may request a personal hearing at any stage of the process, submit witnesses, and ensure their voices become part of the official record.

While fee rules limit when attorneys may charge for services, legal representation is permitted throughout the claim and appeal process. For parents facing complex questions of income, service connection, or family status, informed advocacy often makes the difference between recognition and silence.

Why This Knowledge Matters

The VA’s application form for parents is not just paperwork. It is a quiet acknowledgment that parents bear a unique loss, and that the law, imperfectly but intentionally, provides a mechanism for recognition and support.

But that mechanism only works if parents know it exists.

For families of armed and unarmed service members alike, understanding these rights is not about money alone. It is about dignity, accountability, and the acknowledgment that a life given in service does not vanish into administrative margins once the uniform is folded away.

References and Citations

  • Department of Veterans Affairs, VA Form 21P-535, Application for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation by Parent(s) (June 2024), including General Instructions, eligibility criteria, income rules, parental definitions, filing deadlines, and PACT Act re-adjudication provisions

Parents VBA-21P-535-ARE (1)

  • Public Law 117-168, Honoring Our PACT Act of 2022, referenced within VA Form 21P-535

Parents VBA-21P-535-ARE (1)

  • Title 38, United States Code, governing Dependency and Indemnity Compensation and accrued benefits, as incorporated by reference in VA Form 21P-535

They Served Anyway: Black Americans, Military Service, and the Measure of a Nation

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Remembering and honoring our uniformed military service members

There is a through-line in American history that does not bend with convenience or recognition. It is written not in speeches or proclamations, but in uniforms worn under unequal laws, in hands that steadied rifles and medical instruments alike, in discipline upheld even when dignity was denied.

Black Americans have served this nation in every war it has fought. They served when freedom was still theoretical. They served when segregation was official policy. They served when the nation asked for loyalty but offered exclusion in return. And they continue to serve today, across every branch of the Armed Forces, in combat and non-combat roles, armed and unarmed, visible and unseen.

This is not a side story of American military history. It is one of its central truths.

Long before full citizenship was recognized, Black Americans were already defending the idea of America itself. During the Civil War, the formation of the United States Colored Troops marked a turning point not only in the war’s outcome, but in the nation’s moral trajectory. More than 180,000 Black men enlisted in the Union Army, with thousands more serving in the Navy. They fought for a country that still questioned their humanity, knowing that defeat meant the permanence of bondage, not only for themselves, but for generations to come.

After the war, service did not yield equality. Instead, it produced new battlegrounds. Black soldiers were organized into segregated regiments, later known as the Buffalo Soldiers, and sent westward to patrol frontiers, build infrastructure, protect settlements, and fight in conflicts few Americans today remember. Their professionalism was unquestioned by those who served beside them, yet they were routinely barred from advancement and leadership. Even so, they stayed.

When the United States entered World War I, Black Americans again stepped forward. The 369th Infantry Regiment, famously known as the Harlem Hellfighters, spent more time in front-line trenches than any other American unit of comparable size. They fought under French command because their own military would not fully integrate them. They returned home as heroes abroad,and second-class citizens at home.

World War II magnified the contradiction. America fought fascism overseas while maintaining segregation within its own ranks. Yet Black service members met that contradiction not with withdrawal, but with excellence.

In the skies over Europe, the Tuskegee Airmen dismantled myths that had been used for decades to justify exclusion. Their success was measured not in propaganda, but in discipline, skill, and mission completion. On the ground, the 761st Tank Battalion pushed through some of the war’s fiercest fighting, earning respect the system had long withheld.

Black Marines trained at Montford Point, under conditions designed to discourage them. Instead, they laid the foundation for the fully integrated Marine Corps that exists today.

And amid this history, Black women served with distinction, often without recognition. The 6888th Central Postal Directory Battalion, the only all-Black, all-female unit deployed overseas during World War II, was tasked with clearing years of backlogged mail. Their work restored morale across entire theaters of war. They did it under segregation, sexism, and wartime pressure and completed the mission ahead of schedule.

Acts of individual heroism also forced institutional reckoning. When Doris Miller, serving as a mess attendant aboard the USS West Virginia, took up a weapon during the attack on Pearl Harbor and helped save wounded sailors, the Navy could no longer justify excluding Black service members from combat roles while demanding combat courage.

Change, when it came, it came late. Harry S. Truman signed Executive Order 9981 in 1948, formally desegregating the Armed Forces. But that order did not create equality, it acknowledged what Black service members had already proven for generations.

Today, Black men and women serve across every military branch, in command positions, in legal and medical corps, in logistics, intelligence, cyber operations, and frontline combat roles. Their service strengthens readiness. Their leadership shapes doctrine. Their presence makes the institution more honest.

Black History Month is not about asking whether Black Americans belong in the military. History has already answered that question. It is about recognizing that the Armed Forces have been shaped fundamentally and permanently by those who served anyway.

Disclaimer:
This content is intended for educational and informational purposes and reflects historical records from government and museum sources. It does not constitute legal advice.

When Treatment Becomes a Liability: Why Veterans Must Reject Disability Policies That Punish Care

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Veteran Affairs

For veterans and service members living with service-connected injuries and illnesses, treatment is not optional. Medication often stands between stability and crisis, between daily functioning and permanent deterioration. Any policy that treats medical care as a factor that reduces entitlement rather than evidence of ongoing disability strikes at the core of the promise made to those who serve.

That is why the Department of Veterans Affairs interim final rule titled “Evaluative Rating Impact of Medication” sparked such immediate and forceful backlash. The rule was issued on February 17 without input from veterans’ groups and with “immediate effect,” meaning it applied to all claims or appeals filed on or after that date.  It required medical providers evaluating disabilities to consider how a veteran functions while medicated, rather than on the underlying severity and permanence of the service-connected condition.  If a treatment or medication lowered the level of disability, the rating must be based on that lower level.

This approach misunderstands both medicine and service. Medication does not erase injury. It masks symptoms, manages pain, stabilizes mental health, and in many cases introduces serious side effects that themselves limit employment, cognition, mobility, and quality of life. Measuring disability through a medicated snapshot ignores the full reality of what veterans endure every day.

More troubling still, the rule placed veterans in an impossible position. If disability ratings depend on medicated performance, veterans may feel pressured to refuse treatment, discontinue medication, or endure unmanaged symptoms to prove the seriousness of their condition. That is not a theoretical concern. Veterans routinely face scrutiny during evaluations, and even subtle incentives can shape behavior when benefits, health care access, and family stability are at stake.

Disability compensation exists to acknowledge loss, not compliance. It recognizes that service-connected conditions carry lifelong consequences regardless of how diligently a veteran pursues treatment. A policy that effectively penalizes veterans for following medical advice undermines the very purpose of the system.

The response from the veteran community reflected this reality. Tens of thousands of comments flooded the Federal Register within days. Veterans, advocates, clinicians, and service organizations raised alarms about fairness, legality, and safety. The message was clear. Veterans should never be punished for seeking care.

In response, VA Secretary Collins announced that the VA would continue collecting public comment, but the rule would not be enforced. While this pause is significant, it does not erase the broader concern, especially in light of Secretary Collins’ statement that the public was mischaracterizing the rule as having a negative effect on veterans. Rules can be proposed again. Interpretations can quietly shift. Administrative changes often move faster than public awareness.

For service members approaching separation, veterans navigating disability claims, and federal and civil servants whose careers and retirements depend on accurate medical assessments, vigilance is essential. Disability determinations frequently serve as the gateway to retirement eligibility, employment protections, health care continuity, and financial security. Policies that narrow or redefine those determinations without full transparency put lives in limbo.

Defending veterans’ rights requires more than reacting after harm occurs. It requires sustained scrutiny of regulatory changes, meaningful public engagement, and a firm insistence that medical treatment never be weaponized against those who rely on it.

The covenant between the nation and those who serve does not end when a prescription is filled. It endures precisely because service-connected injuries endure. Any policy that forgets that truth deserves to be challenged early and often.

About

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, represents service members, veterans, and federal and civil employees in matters involving military justice, disability retirement, VA benefits, federal employment law, constitutional rights, and privacy protections. The firm advocates nationally for those whose service places them at the intersection of health, employment, and federal policy.

 

Disclaimer

This opinion piece is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Individuals should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

 

 

References

Official Government Source

Evaluative Rating Impact of Medication (Federal Register, Interim Final Rule)
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2026/02/17/2026-03068/evaluative-rating-impact-of-medication

News Coverage

VA halts implementation of controversial disability rating rule following backlash (Military Times)
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2026/02/19/va-halts-implementation-of-controversial-disability-rating-rule-following-backlash/

VA to consider medical management of symptoms in determining disability ratings (Military Times)
https://www.militarytimes.com/veterans/2026/02/18/va-to-consider-medical-management-of-symptoms-in-determining-disability-ratings/

In rare move, Veterans Affairs pulls back on controversial disability rule (Washington Post)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/02/19/veteran-affairs-disability-rule/

Veterans and Advocacy Statements

VFW Demands VA Rescind Disability Rating Rule Change (Veterans of Foreign Wars)
https://www.vfw.org/media-and-events/latest-releases/archives/2026/2/vfw-demands-va-rescind-disability-rating-rule-change

DAV statement on halting of VA rule (Disabled American Veterans)
https://www.dav.org/learn-more/news/2026/dav-statement-on-the-halting-of-va-rule/

NCOA Formal Opposition to VA Medication Based Ratings Rule
https://www.ncoausa.org/news/ncoa-submits-formal-opposition-to-va-ifrr

Additional Background

New VA Rule Ties Disability Ratings to Medicated Symptoms (Military.com)
https://www.military.com/benefits/veterans-health-care/new-va-rule-ties-disability-ratings-medicated-symptoms-drawing-fire-veterans-groups.html

Judge Reasserts the First Amendment and Protects Veteran Voices

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Defending the Constitution

In a striking rebuke to the Pentagon’s attempt to punish Senator Mark Kelly, U.S. District Judge Richard Leon blocked the Defense Department from reducing Kelly’s retired rank and pension, a decision that should reverberate well beyond this one lawsuit.

At the heart of Judge Leon’s order is a simple constitutional truth: free speech is not a conditional benefit to be revoked when the government disagrees with the message. Leon’s ruling affirms that principle in the face of an unprecedented effort to penalize a retired service member for publicly urging troops to refuse unlawful orders.

Leon made clear in earlier hearings that this isn’t just an ordinary dispute about retirement benefits. He questioned Pentagon lawyers about their legal foundation, noting pointedly that what the government was asking the court to endorse was something “the Supreme Court…has never done.” That skepticism was not just procedural; it was a signal that the framing of this case threatened long-established First Amendment norms.

By granting Kelly’s motion for a preliminary injunction, Leon has done more than protect one senator’s livelihood. He has sent a message to the executive branch: You cannot weaponize military status to chill speech that is at the core of democratic debate. The government’s effort to reduce Kelly’s rank and retirement pay for exercising his right to speak plainly about unlawful orders was, as Leon’s ruling implies, exactly the sort of retaliatory overreach our constitutional framework is designed to prevent.

In a political climate where disputes over national security and military policy are intense and often divisive, judges must be guardians first of the Constitution, not partisans of the outcry. Judge Leon’s decision, grounded in fundamental First Amendment principles, reminds us that veterans do not surrender their civic voice when they leave active service.

Judge Leon closed his opinion with this sage advice:

“ Rather than trying to shrink the First Amendment liberties of retired, Secretary Hegseth and his fellow Defendants might reflect and be grateful for the wisdom and expertise that retired servicemembers have brought to public discussions and debate on military matters in our Nation over the past 250 years. If so, they will more fully appreciate why the Founding Fathers made free speech the first Amendment in the Bill of Rights! Hopefully this injunction will in some small way help bring about a course correction in the Defense Department’s approach to these issues.“

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who’s Who Behind the Amicus Brief and Why It Matters for Every Veteran

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A powerful amicus curiae brief filed in Kelly v. Hegseth brings together an extraordinary coalition of former service secretaries, retired senior military leaders, and veteran advocates to deliver a unified warning to the court: punishing a retired service member for truthful public speech about military law threatens democratic self-government and chills the voices of millions of veterans nationwide.

This is not an abstract dispute about decorum or discipline. It is a case about who gets to speak, what the law actually requires, and whether veterans remain full participants in civic life after they hang up the uniform.

The Case at the Center

The lawsuit was brought by Mark Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy Captain and sitting U.S. Senator, after the Department of Defense took the unprecedented step of formally censuring him for public statements explaining a settled principle of military law: service members have a duty to disobey unlawful orders.

The defendant is Pete Hegseth, sued in his official capacity.

The amicus brief supports Senator Kelly’s request for a preliminary injunction, warning that allowing this punishment to stand would dramatically expand executive power over veteran speech.

Who Filed the Amicus Brief—and Why Their Voices Matter

Former Service Secretaries: Civilian Oversight at Stake

Among the amici are former civilian leaders entrusted with oversight of the armed forces, including:

  • Louis E. Caldera
  • Sean C. O’Keefe

Their participation signals that this case is not about politics—it is about preserving lawful civilian-military norms and constitutional boundaries.

Retired Generals and Admirals: Unmatched Military Authority

More than 40 retired senior officers across every branch of the armed forces signed the brief. Collectively, they served under every president from Dwight D. Eisenhower to Donald J. Trump.

Notable signatories include:

  • Antonio Taguba, known for leading the Abu Ghraib investigation
  • Michael V. Hayden, former Director of the CIA and NSA
  • Claudia J. Kennedy, the first woman to reach three-star rank in the Army
  • Thad W. Allen, former Commandant of the Coast Guard

These are not marginal critics. They are the leaders who trained troops, commanded forces, enforced military law, and safeguarded the institution’s credibility.

Veteran Civil Society: The Broader Impact

The brief is also joined by Vet Voice Foundation, a non-partisan organization representing nearly two million veterans and military family members.

Their involvement highlights the real-world consequences: when veteran speech is chilled, public debate suffers—and so does democratic accountability.

Counsel for the Amici

The amici are represented by leading democracy and constitutional-law organizations:

  • Protect Democracy Project
  • States United Democracy Center

What the Amicus Brief Argues—At a Glance

  1. Veteran Participation Is Essential to Democracy

Veterans serve throughout public life—as legislators, judges, journalists, educators, and advocates. Silencing them deprives the public of informed perspectives on national security and military policy.

  1. The Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders Is Settled Law

The brief traces this principle through U.S. military case law, the Law of War, the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and post-World War II precedent. Explaining this duty publicly is accurate, lawful, and necessary, not misconduct.

  1. UCMJ Speech Limits Do Not Apply to This Case

Even for active-duty service members, speech may be restricted only where there is a direct and palpable connection to military mission or discipline. That standard is nowhere close to being met here—especially for a retired officer holding elected office.

If the government’s position were accepted, the brief warns, no meaningful First Amendment protection would remain for veterans.

Why This Moment Matters

The amici make clear that they filed this brief despite recognizing the risk of retaliation themselves. That chilling effect is the constitutional injury at the heart of this case.

If a retired service member can be punished for accurately explaining military law—then every veteran’s voice becomes conditional, subject to political approval.

This case is about more than one Senator. It is about whether service ends with silence—or whether veterans remain full participants in the democracy they defended.

Documents

Kelly amicus brief

1 Complaint Kelly v. Hegseth, 1.12.26

2 Kelly motion for emergency TRO and PI, 1.12.26

Amicus brief in support of Kelly, 1.20.26

4 Govt opposition to Kelly PI motion, 1.22.26 

Senator Kelly Reply brief in support of PI motion, 1.26.26

Citations & References

  • Brief of Amici Curiae Former Service Secretaries, Retired Senior Military Officers, and Vet Voice Foundation in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Stay, Kelly v. Hegseth, No. 1:26-cv-00081-RJL (D.D.C. Jan. 20, 2026). Kelly amicus brief
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice; Manual for Courts-Martial
  • United States v. Calley, 48 C.M.R. 19 (1973)
  • United States v. Huet-Vaughn, 43 M.J. 105 (C.A.A.F. 1995)
  • Department of Defense Law of War Manual

What the Erosion of the MSPB Means for Federal and Military Fairness

Posted on by Becky Haugen

MSPB
The MSPB system exists, but who is it serving now?”

When Independence Becomes Illusion: What the Erosion of the MSPB Means for Federal and Military Fairness

For nearly half a century, Congress intended the Merit Systems Protection Board to serve as a quiet but essential guardian of fairness, an independent forum where federal employees could challenge unjust personnel actions without fear of political retaliation. That independence was not an accident. It was a deliberate legislative choice, born of historical abuses, designed to ensure that careers in public service would rise or fall on merit, not on politics.

Today, that vision is in jeopardy.

In recent months, a series of developments, judicial, administrative, and structural have converged to fundamentally weaken the MSPB’s ability to function as Congress intended. What was once an independent adjudicatory body increasingly resembling a procedural bottleneck: nominally restored, but substantively constrained.

The D.C. Circuit’s January 9 decision declining to rehear Harris v. Bessent marked a quiet but consequential turning point. By allowing a panel decision to stand that casts doubt on statutory protection shielding MSPB members from at-will presidential removal, the court effectively signaled that the Board’s independence is constitutionally suspect. The reasoning rests on the idea that the MSPB exercises “substantial executive power” and therefore must be directly accountable to the president. That framing collapses the distinction Congress carefully built between executive enforcement and neutral adjudication.

As Lawfare observed in its recent analysis, this reasoning places the MSPB squarely in the crosshairs of modern separation-of-powers doctrine. Once the Board is treated as an extension of executive authority rather than a buffer against it, the premise of impartial review begins to erode. Independence becomes performative, existing in name, but not in function.

This erosion did not occur in a vacuum. For much of the past year, the MSPB lacked a quorum altogether, rendering it unable to issue final decisions. During that period, federal workers successfully argued in court that pursuing administrative relief would be futile. Judges agreed. Lawsuits moved forward. For a brief moment, access to Article III courts provided a meaningful alternative when the administrative system failed.

That window has now largely closed.

With the Senate’s confirmation of a new Board member restoring a quorum, the MSPB is technically operational again. But restoration of form does not equal restoration of justice. The Board returns burdened by a massive backlog and operating under a legal cloud that undermines its structural independence. For tens of thousands of federal employees, this means a return to mandatory administrative exhaustion, long delays, uncertain outcomes, and limited judicial review before ever setting foot in a courtroom.

For civil servants, this is more than an inconvenience. It is a narrowing of practical access to justice.

And for military service members, the implications are even more sobering.

Although uniformed service members often navigate separate statutory regimes, the logic now applied to the MSPB does not stop at civilian agencies. Military correction boards, discharge review boards, and administrative tribunals operate on similar assumptions of deference and internal review. When courts weaken the independence of civilian adjudicatory bodies, the ripple effects reinforce a broader judicial posture: one that increasingly favors executive control over independent review in personnel matters.

Congress never intended merit-based protections to function this way. The MSPB was designed as a shield, not a speed bump. It was meant to provide fair, neutral adjudication precisely because courts recognized the danger of politicized employment decisions within government. By insulating Board members and empowering them to decide cases free from executive pressure, Congress sought to preserve both fairness and public trust.

What we are witnessing now is a slow inversion of that design.

A board that can be restructured, influenced, or constrained through removal power and judicial reinterpretation cannot credibly promise impartiality. A system that forces employees into years-long administrative limbo before permitting judicial review does not meaningfully protect due process. And a legal framework that treats adjudicators as mere extensions of executive authority undermines the very concept of neutral review.

This moment calls for clarity, not partisanship.

If fairness and independence remain core values in federal service, Congress must confront the gap between its original intent and present reality. That may require statutory reform, clearer jurisdictional pathways to federal court, or renewed protections for adjudicatory independence. Without such action, the merit system risks becoming an artifact of history rather than a living safeguard.

For federal employees and service members alike, justice delayed and independence diluted is justice denied.

About Military Defense Law

Military Defense Law is published by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, providing analysis and advocacy on military justice, federal employment law, and the constitutional rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Individuals facing adverse personnel actions should consult qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

Citations & References

Federal Court Challenge Highlights Systemic Failures in Correcting Injustice Within the Uniformed Force, the United States Public Health Service

Posted on by Becky Haugen

USPHS Justice

A federal lawsuit now before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia brings renewed attention to the obligation of military correction boards to correct injustices in the records of uniformed service members, particularly when clear evidence shows systemic failures in supervision, medical oversight, and administrative review.  The case arises for a uniformed officer serving in the United States Public Health Service (PHS).

In this case, an accomplished commissioned officer seeks judicial review after a federal agency official overturned a formal PHS Board for Correction (BFC) finding that an injustice had occurred. The complaint challenges whether the agency’s leadership may disregard its own correction board’s fact-based conclusions without evidentiary support, and whether such actions violate long-standing administrative law principles.

A Record Showing Red Flags, But No Intervention

According to the court filings, the correction board determined that the officer’s service record reflected unmistakable warning signs of a serious medical condition tied to a line-of-duty injury and prescribed treatment. Despite repeated absences and performance concerns that should have triggered inquiry and assistance, the record showed no evidence that supervisors ever confronted the officer, investigated the underlying cause, or referred the matter for appropriate treatment.

The PHS BFC concluded that this failure constituted a clear injustice, particularly where governing regulations emphasize early identification, supervisory responsibility, and mandatory referral when substance-related or medical impairment is suspected. Those findings were grounded in the administrative record and supported by established precedent recognizing that silence and stigma often prevent individuals from self-reporting medical conditions.

Despite the PHS BFC’s determination, a senior agency official rejected the recommendation and denied relief without identifying evidence contradicting the Board’s findings. The complaint argues that this reversal was arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to grapple with the record evidence, ignored the board’s conclusions, and substituted unsupported assertions in place of reasoned analysis

Equally significant, the agency attempted to deny the officer’s application “with prejudice.” In response, the government has now effectively conceded in its court filings that such denials are not permitted under the governing statute—an admission that carries implications well beyond this individual case.

At its core, this litigation is about accountability. Federal correction boards exist to remedy injustice when the system fails. When their findings are overridden without evidence, service members lose faith in the very mechanisms designed to protect them.

This case underscores:

  • The duty of supervisors to act when medical or behavioral red flags appear
  • The legal limits on agency discretion when overturning correction-board decisions
  • The continuing role of federal courts in safeguarding due process for those who served

For service members navigating complex medical and administrative challenges, the outcome of this case may shape how agencies nationwide honor their statutory responsibilities.

About the Firm

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a nationally recognized military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C. The firm represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in courts-martial, security clearance matters, military correction boards, disability and retirement cases, and complex federal litigation.

Disclaimer

This press release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this publication. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.