Category: Spotlight

When One Piece of Paper Destroys a Career: The Hidden Danger of a Reprimand

Posted on by Becky Haugen

He was the kind of officer others looked up to. Showed up early, stayed late, and took care of his troops. When something needed fixing, he made sure it got done. He was tough, but fair and exactly the kind of leader you want in charge when things get hard. And that’s what got him in trouble.

After years of service, countless sacrifices, and a spotless record, one memo changed everything. A General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand, a GOMOR, landed in his official file, accusing him of “toxic leadership.” What did that mean? No one could really say. The phrase has no clear definition. It’s often thrown around when commanders simply don’t like a particular subordinate. Maybe the officer was too direct. Maybe he pushed his team harder than others. Maybe he didn’t play political games.

And just like that, his career stalled.

GOMORs, unlike regular counseling or feedback, are powerful and dangerous. They don’t just sit in a drawer. They go into your permanent record. They can make you ineligible for promotions, prevent you from transferring, or even push you out of the military completely. They can be used as a quiet way to end someone’s career, without any real due process, evidence, or chance to defend yourself.

The worst part? It’s happening more and more. Officers are getting labeled with “toxic leadership” or “loss of confidence” a vague term that carries heavy weight. Many of these officers are the ones who hold their teams accountable, who push for excellence, who challenge the status quo. But when leadership changes, or when someone higher up decides they want a different kind of personality in the position, the hammer falls.

One reprimand. One accusation. And suddenly, years of service are on the line.

That’s where the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon steps in.

Senior Military Attorney David P. Sheldon and his team have seen it all, officers who are blindsided, confused, and scared. They’ve worked with clients who were told they had no future, no promotion, and no choice but to resign. But with the right legal strategy, things can change.

Sometimes that means fighting to remove the GOMOR altogether. Other times it means correcting the record, filing an appeal, or pushing back against a board that rubber-stamped a punishment without asking questions. The team at David P. Sheldon’s, PLLC firm knows the system inside and out and they know how to affirm the service member’s rights to fair career adjudication.

They’ve helped officers get unfair reprimands removed, promotions reinstated, and careers put back on track. And in cases where the system isn’t accurate, they’ve taken the fight all the way to federal court. Because no one should lose everything they’ve worked for because of one biased letter or a leadership change that didn’t go their way.

The military is built on rules. But sometimes, those rules are applied unfairly. And when that happens, you need someone in your corner who knows how to fight back.

If you or someone you know is facing a GOMOR or LOR, especially one based on incorrect or vague claims or office politics, don’t wait. The earlier you act, the more options you have. One memo shouldn’t define your service, your future, or your legacy.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is here to help you protect all that you’ve earned. Because your career shouldn’t end with a whisper in the hallway, it should be honored for the years of dedication you gave to this country.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally respected military and federal employment law firm. Led by founder David Sheldon, the firm represents service members in GOMOR rebuttals, LOR removal, promotion restoration, discharge upgrades, security clearance appeals, and correction of military records. With decades of combined experience, the firm is committed to defending those who defend our nation.

www.militarydefense.com

Legal Disclaimer:

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is created by viewing or sharing this content. For legal advice regarding your specific situation, please consult with a licensed attorney.

 

Private Power, Public Uniform: What Happens When Tech Executives Are Commissioned as Army Officers?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Military Law Analysis on Dual Roles, Conflict of Interest, and the Reach of the UCMJ

 

When four prominent tech executives from companies like Palantir, Meta, OpenAI, and Thinking Machines Lab were appointed as officers in the U.S. Army Reserve, it made headlines for its novelty, but the deeper issue is legal, not symbolic. These appointments raise serious concerns under federal ethics laws and military justice statutes, especially where government contracts and national defense intersect with private enterprises.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, where we specialize in military and federal law, we recognize the growing legal complexity faced by service members who also maintain civilian leadership roles in the private sector. The direct commissioning of executives with active Department of Defense (DoD) contracts into the military is not just unusual, it may push the limits of conflict-of-interest protections and military accountability.

While Reserve officers typically serve part-time and do not require Senate confirmation, their legal obligations under military law are anything but part-time. Once commissioned, these individuals become subject to Title 10 of the U.S. Code, and more importantly, to the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) when performing military duties or training. That means a tech CEO wearing the uniform on drill weekend or while representing the military in any official capacity is legally accountable under Articles of the UCMJ such as:

  • Article 92 (Failure to obey lawful orders)
  • Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming an officer)
  • Article 134 (General article, including ethics violations)

These articles apply regardless of civilian status or rank in the private sector. Further, Reserve officers must comply with regulations such as the Joint Ethics Regulation (DoD 5500.07-R) and federal conflict statutes like 18 U.S.C. § 208, which bars federal personnel from participating in government matters that impact their personal or financial interests.

This raises fundamental questions: If an Army Reserve officer is also an executive at a company bidding for, or executing, government contracts, can that officer truly separate military service from private gain? Even with recusals or waivers, the appearance of undue influence or privileged access could undermine the integrity of both military command and procurement processes.

What makes these cases particularly sensitive is the evolving role of artificial intelligence, data infrastructure, and cloud technology in U.S. defense strategy. Companies like Palantir and Meta are not just tech firms, they are defense stakeholders. Their leaders’ dual roles now bring unprecedented proximity to the strategic, ethical, and legal frameworks that govern military decision-making.

The military has long relied on direct commissions to attract specialized civilian talent, doctors, lawyers, chaplains, but these new appointments suggest a possible strategic shift that blurs lines between private sector innovation and military authority. Without greater oversight, clearer regulations, and firm enforcement of military law, the implications could be profound, not only for military readiness and contracting fairness, but for public trust.

As a military law firm that has represented hundreds of service members facing administrative actions, ethics investigations, and UCMJ charges, we know how critical it is to protect the legal boundaries between personal interests and public duty. The Reserve commission is not symbolic; it is a legal obligation backed by the full force of military law.

If you are a service member, Reservist, or civilian professional navigating similar dual-role concerns, particularly in defense contracting or federal employment, we encourage you to seek legal counsel. The consequences of crossing the line between civilian advantage and military duty can be more than reputational, they can be legal.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, DC, is a nationally recognized law firm representing service members, federal employees, and civilians in military justice and federal employment law. The firm has successfully represented clients in courts-martial, separation boards, security clearance revocations, and conflict-of-interest matters across the armed services.

Disclaimer:
This blog post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. For personalized legal guidance, please consult a licensed attorney.

Missouri Jury Sides with Veteran in PTSD Workplace Discrimination Case: A Turning Point for Mental Health Rights?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A Missouri jury recently awarded a veteran $700,000.00 in damages after finding his PTSD, a service-related, disabling mental health condition was not reasonably accommodated at work. The decision is significant as it treats PTSD with the same gravity as physical disabilities, sending a clear message to employers across the U.S.

This ruling may be early evidence of a legal shift that mental health is stepping into the same protective space as physical health under disability law. Employers should take note training, workplace flexibility, and early accommodation could soon go from optional best-practices to legal necessities.

Moreover, as veterans face stricter evidentiary standards in VA proceedings, workplace rulings like this may offer an alternate path to recognition and relief. Importantly, insurers and employers may now have a business imperative to revisit their PTSD and mental health policies.

This isn’t just one Veteran’s legal win as it could mark a turning point for mental-health accommodations in the workplace.

The Missouri verdict, while not binding nationwide, is a high-profile affirmation that PTSD can be a workplace disability requiring legal protection. It aligns with evolving expectations—legal, corporate, and cultural—that mental health deserves serious, structured support in employment. Employers, insurers, and advocates should treat this case as a catalyst: it’s time to fully integrate mental health into workplace rights and practices.

Resources

Supreme Court Ruling in Soto v. United States Expands Retroactive CRSC Benefits for Veterans

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Supreme Court Delivers a Legal Victory for Combat-Injured Veterans

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, affirming that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims. This landmark ruling significantly expands the scope of retroactive benefits available to thousands of disabled veterans nationwide.

Background

Simon Soto, a retired Marine, applied for CRSC benefits in 2016. While the Navy approved his eligibility, it limited his retroactive compensation to just six years, citing the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702), which generally prohibits payment of claims older than six years. Soto challenged this cap, arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) was not subject to the Barring Act because it is administered under a distinct statutory scheme that gives the Secretary of the Navy independent settlement authority.

While a lower court initially sided with Soto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, prompting Soto to petition the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Ruling

In its opinion in Soto v. United States, No. 23-1053, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRSC statute does indeed grant the Secretary the authority to “settle” claims, thereby placing CRSC outside the Barring Act’s limitations period. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that CRSC’s statutory structure empowers the Secretary to determine eligibility and the amount due—hallmarks of settlement authority.

“The CRSC statute is just such a law,” wrote Justice Jackson. “It authorizes the Secretary of the military department to determine eligibility and calculate the amount payable. The Barring Act therefore does not apply.”

Read the full opinion: Soto v. United States (SCOTUS Opinion, June 12, 2025)

What This Means for Veterans

This decision clears a long-standing bureaucratic hurdle for veterans who were previously capped at six years of retroactive CRSC payments. With the ruling, veterans may now be eligible for compensation dating back to when their entitlement began—even if it was more than six years ago.

This is especially impactful for retirees who:

  • Received delayed disability ratings from the VA.
  • Were unaware of CRSC eligibility due to miscommunication or misinformation.
  • Faced systemic delays in applying.

Estimates suggest that over 9,000 veterans affected by the six-year limit may now pursue additional tax-free benefits. Veterans previously denied full back pay under CRSC should revisit their claims immediately. Legal assistance from attorneys experienced in military compensation law may be essential in pursuing the additional entitlements now available under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Legal Citations & Resources

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC did not represent the plaintiff in this case. Veterans seeking to understand how this decision may impact their Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) entitlements are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney experienced in military compensation law. Every case is fact-specific, and legal outcomes may vary.

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

VA Disability Calculator Errors and Supreme Court Ruling Put Veterans’ Ratings at Risk

Posted on by Becky Haugen

This year, veterans across the country were surprised to learn that the VA’s online disability calculator, something many rely on to estimate benefits has been giving incorrect results. A recent report by Stars and Stripes revealed that flaws in the system may have caused veterans to receive the wrong combined disability rating. That could mean thousands of dollars in lost compensation for those affected.

The VA acknowledged the issue but hasn’t announced a system-wide fix to correct the miscalculations. This is deeply troubling, especially now that the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a decision that makes it harder than ever to fix these mistakes after the fact.

In March 2025, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Bufkin v. McDonough, 601 U.S. ___ (2025). The Court decided that VA decisions can only be overturned if they meet the extremely high bar of a “clear and unmistakable error,” also known as a CUE. That means even if the VA made a mistake in calculating your disability rating, you can’t just appeal the decision unless you can prove it was obviously and unquestionably wrong.

You can read the Supreme Court’s docket entry here:
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/604/23-713/

The recent problem with the calculator combined with this ruling puts the burden entirely on the veteran. You must now catch and fix rating errors early, before the VA finalizes its decision. Once your claim is denied or granted with the wrong rating, you may have little to no recourse.

Why is this so important? Your VA disability rating affects not only your monthly tax-free payments but also your access to healthcare, housing programs, education benefits, and your eligibility for military retirement benefits. For example, the difference between a 90% and a 100% rating can amount to more than $1,000 per month and over a lifetime, this can mean tens of thousands of dollars in lost benefits.

Now more than ever, legal experts urge veterans, service members, and federal employees to take action to ensure their ratings are accurate. First, request a full copy of your VA claims file, also known as a C-file. This file includes all documents used to decide your case. Review your medical ratings, award letters, and the VA’s decision explanation. This is your first line of defense.

Next, don’t rely on the VA’s online tools. Use trusted independent resources like https://www.dav.org/disability-calculator to double-check how your disabilities were combined. VA math uses a formula that isn’t simple addition, and errors in the calculator have already affected many veterans.

If you find an error in your rating or award decision, you should file a correction immediately. Veterans can submit a Supplemental Claim using VA Form 20-0995, which is available online at: https://www.vba.va.gov/pubs/forms/VBA-20-0995-ARE.pdf  The earlier you act, the more options you will have. Waiting too long can result in permanent loss of benefits.

Finally, consider seeking legal support. A VA-accredited attorney or representative can review your case, help you gather supporting evidence, and ensure your paperwork is accurate and complete before you submit it. Under the Supreme Court’s Bufkin decision, the window for correcting errors is now narrower than ever before.

As Attorney David P. Sheldon explains, “If you’re a veteran relying on a rating from the VA’s calculator, now is the time to double-check everything. Because under Bufkin, even honest mistakes might not be fixable after the fact.”

The takeaway is clear: every veteran must now approach their initial disability claim as if it’s their only chance to get it right. The legal system is no longer positioned to correct missteps made along the way, even when those missteps aren’t your fault.

For additional information on how the VA processes appeals and claim reviews, visit https://www.va.gov/decision-reviews/. For independent help from a nonprofit, the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program offers free legal assistance to qualifying veterans at https://vetsprobono.org.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
Based in Washington, DC, we are a nationally recognized law firm focused on protecting the rights of military service members, veterans, and federal employees. We help clients fight unjust discharges, benefit denials, security clearance revocations, and more.

Contact the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC  https://militarydefense.com

Disclaimer
This educational post does not constitute legal advice. Every claim and rating situation is unique. Veterans are encouraged to speak with a qualified attorney to review their individual cases.

Orders Under Fire: When Following Command Becomes a Legal Risk in Today’s Military

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When Obedience Becomes a Crime: The Military Duty to Disobey Unlawful Orders

Obedience in Uniform Has Limits

Military personnel are bound by duty, discipline, and the chain of command. But that duty does not extend to illegal actions. Under both U.S. military law and international standards, service members are legally required to refuse unlawful orders—a point often overlooked in public discourse and sometimes misunderstood within the ranks.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, we’ve stood beside clients worldwide who’ve had the courage to disobey in defense of justice and the Constitution. This article explores the legal, ethical, and historical foundations of the duty to refuse unlawful orders—and what protections exist for those who do.

What Is an Unlawful Order?

Under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) Article 92, service members are required to obey lawful orders. However, not all orders are lawful, and military law draws a clear distinction between orders that must be followed and those that must be refused.

An unlawful order is one that requires the commission of a criminal act or violates the Constitution, U.S. federal law, or applicable international law.

Examples of Unlawful Orders:

  • Targeting or intentionally harming civilians
  • Torturing or abusing detainees
  • Falsifying operational or legal records
  • Engaging in unauthorized political or domestic law enforcement actions

Important Note: All military orders are presumed lawful. The burden falls on the service member to establish that an order is manifestly unlawful. This is a high standard, and hesitation or refusal can carry serious consequences—even if ultimately justified.

Because of this legal complexity, service members should consult with legal counsel as soon as they suspect an order may be unlawful. Do not disobey an order without first seeking guidance from a qualified military attorney, unless the order is clearly illegal on its face (e.g., ordering you to shoot unarmed civilians).

According to Army Field Manual 27-10:

“The fact that a person acted pursuant to order of his government or of a superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible.”

Historical and Legal Precedents

  1. Nuremberg Trials (1945–46)

Established the global legal principle that “just following orders” is not a valid defense for war crimes.

  1. Yamashita v. Styer, 327 U.S. 1 (1946)

Held a commanding officer accountable for crimes committed by subordinates—introducing the doctrine of command responsibility. (Read the case)

  1. United States v. Calley (My Lai Massacre)

Calley’s conviction showed that carrying out manifestly illegal orders—even in combat—results in individual accountability. (U.S. Army analysis)

  1. Lt. Ehren Watada (2006)

Refused deployment to Iraq, arguing that the war was illegal. Although his case ended in a mistrial, it reignited public debate on conscience versus command.  Case overview

Ethics in Action: The Burden of Moral Courage

Military obedience does not require blind loyalty. Orders carry the presumption of legality, but that presumption is rebuttable—especially when the order is clearly illegal on its face. Recognizing an unlawful order is often difficult in fast-moving, hierarchical situations. Still, ethical training and operational awareness are designed to support service members in making these critical decisions.

Protections for Service Members Who Speak Up

Disobeying an unlawful order may save lives, protect the Constitution, and uphold international law—but it can also put a service member at risk of retaliation, adverse career action, or criminal charges.

Key Legal Protections:

  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act
    Protects service members who report violations of law or abuse of authority.
    10 U.S. Code § 1034
  • MEB/PEB Appeals and Administrative Relief
    If a service member is wrongfully discharged or medically separated in retaliation, legal remedies may be pursued through the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) and the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Can Help

We represent service members in all branches of the armed forces—worldwide. From courts-martial and boards of inquiry to whistleblower defense and medical discharge litigation, we know how to challenge wrongful actions at every level of military command.

If you’ve been threatened, punished, or silenced for refusing an unlawful order—or for reporting one—you are not alone. And your rights deserve to be defended.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense firm representing active duty, reserve, and retired service members in courts-martial, MEB/PEB proceedings, security clearance matters, administrative separation, and federal court appeals. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to protecting those who serve.

Learn more: www.militarydefense.com

Serving Clients Worldwide, Based in Washington, DC

 

References & Citations

 

Legal Disclaimer

This article is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or create an attorney-client relationship. Every case is fact-specific. If you are facing a legal issue related to military justice or command authority, you should speak with a qualified and licensed military law attorney.

Memorial Day: A Legacy of Honor, A Nation’s Promise

Posted on by Becky Haugen

 

Flag with Soldiers boots
Image of Soldiers Boots in Memory of their Sacrifice.
Photo Taken by David at Schofield Barracks, 25th Infantry Division,”Tropical Lightening”, Memorial Day (2019)

Born from the ashes of the Civil War, Memorial Day began as a solemn tribute to the countless Union and Confederate soldiers who perished on American soil. First known as Decoration Day, families would gather to adorn the graves of the fallen with flowers, flags, and prayers, an act not of politics, but of remembrance. It was a sacred ritual of healing for a fractured nation.

Over a century later, the tradition endures. Memorial Day is no longer about North or South. It is about sacrifice, service, and the silent rows of headstones that stretch across Arlington, Normandy, and beyond. It is about every soldier who laid down their life in defense of a nation they believed in, even when that belief demanded the ultimate price.

As a law firm dedicated to defending the rights of those who wear the uniform, we know the fight does not end at the battlefield. We honor the fallen by standing with the living, ensuring service members, veterans, and their families receive the justice and dignity they have earned.

This weekend, may we all pause not only to remember, but to renew our collective promise: that these sacrifices will not be forgotten, and that our freedoms will never be taken for granted.

Let us honor their sacrifice by serving those who continue to wear the uniform.

Medical Privacy Weaponized: The Pentagon Targets Transgender Troops

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In a move that has stunned civil rights advocates and service members alike, the Department of Defense has authorized the targeting of transgender troops using their own medical records. This isn’t just a policy shift—it’s a constitutional test. It marks a chilling moment where private health data is no longer a matter of care or protection, but a trigger for discharge, exclusion, and potential ruin.

The scope may appear narrow—focused only on service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria—but the implications are sweeping. If a subset of Americans in uniform can be expelled based on medical documentation tied to identity, what stops the next policy from targeting mental health diagnoses, reproductive history, or other protected medical categories?

This is more than a rollback of progress—it’s a blueprint for how bureaucracies can systemically isolate, stigmatize, and expel a population through paper trails. When records become tools of removal, no one is safe from being next.

At its core, this policy is a test:

  • A test of how far executive authority can go in overriding equality.
  • A test of whether health privacy exists at all in the armed forces.
  • A test of America’s promise to treat all who serve with dignity—regardless of gender, identity, or diagnosis.

The question is no longer “Who will be affected?”
It’s “Who’s watching—and who will be next?”

The Policy: Medical Records as a Tool of Separation

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in May 2025 that allowed the Trump administration’s transgender military ban to take effect pending litigation, the Department of Defense issued a memorandum through Secretary Pete Hegseth.

The memo directs the involuntary discharge of transgender service members diagnosed with gender dysphoria unless they voluntarily separate by June 6. Notably, the Pentagon is not relying on self-reporting—it is actively reviewing medical records to identify individuals, even if they have not publicly disclosed their identity.

This marks an unprecedented expansion of military surveillance into private health documentation as a means of enforcing exclusion.

Legal Violations: Due Process, Equal Protection, and Privacy

While military medical records operate under different rules than civilian care (HIPAA protections are limited in uniformed service), that does not mean there are no ethical or legal boundaries.

The new policy arguably violates:

  • The Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, by targeting a protected class based solely on diagnosis tied to identity.
  • The Due Process Clause, by initiating discharge procedures without clear avenues for challenge or individualized assessment.
  • The principles of medical confidentiality, which are foundational even in the structured environment of military service.

Legal organizations including Lambda Legal, the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and the ACLU are mounting constitutional challenges, arguing that this discriminatory use of medical files weaponizes health data and violates civil liberties.

The Human Cost: Service, Sacrifice, and Systemic Exclusion

The real consequences extend far beyond legal theory.

For thousands of transgender troops—many of whom have served honorably through multiple administrations—this means career termination, loss of pensions and VA benefits, housing instability, and the erasure of hard-earned dignity.

This is not an issue of readiness, misconduct, or mission effectiveness. It is an issue of identity being treated as disqualifying.

What happens when medical diagnoses become the basis for separation, rather than support?

A Dangerous Precedent

If the government can discharge someone based on a medical file linked to gender identity today, it begs the question:
Could the same be done tomorrow based on mental health, reproductive history, PTSD, or other protected health conditions?

This policy opens the door to further abuse, creating a precedent where diagnosis equals discharge. That is incompatible with a professional military grounded in constitutional values and civil rights.

Sources and Further Reading:

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a Washington, D.C.-based law firm representing military and federal employees across the country. We are committed to defending the constitutional rights of those who serve—regardless of identity, rank, or assignment. From wrongful discharge to discrimination and medical board challenges, we fight for justice on every front.

 Legal Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a service member affected by this policy, contact a qualified attorney to discuss your rights and options.