Category: Spotlight

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.

When Safe Harbor Isn’t Safe—And the Cost Is More Than Just a Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Broken Ranks: How Premature Discharges Are Stripping Armed and Unarmed Service Members of Their Rightful Benefits

Promise Undone

For every military officer or enlisted member, there is a finish line, commonly known as “safe harbor,” that represents not just years of service, but stability, dignity, and the promise of earned retirement. In federal terms, this often means reaching 18 to 20 years of service, at which point a service member becomes eligible for retirement benefits.

But that finish line is increasingly being moved or removed entirely.

From uniformed members of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and Coast Guard to their non-armed counterparts in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) and NOAA Corps, stories are mounting: individuals relieved from duty without cause, stripped of retirement eligibility, and erased from service records before they can cross that critical threshold. The implications are not just administrative, they’re deeply human.

Who Is Protected—and Who’s Being Pushed Out?

Under the law, all uniformed service members fall under the same protective umbrella. The Servicemembers Civil Relief Act (SCRA) codified at 50 U.S. Code § 3911 explicitly includes:

“Members of the uniformed services, including the armed forces, the commissioned corps of the Public Health Service, and the commissioned corps of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.”

That means USPHS officers, many of whom served at the frontlines of public health crises like COVID-19 and monkeypox, and NOAA Corps officers, who support national environmental and security missions, are legally entitled to protections traditionally associated with the military. These include:

  • Relief from civil actions during active duty
  • Cap on loan interest rates
  • Protection from eviction and foreclosure
  • Termination rights for leases and contracts

What’s missing, however, is enforcement when administrative leadership decides arbitrarily or strategically to relieve someone just before they reach safe harbor.

Systemic Failures, Human Loss

Consider the case of Major Coleman, a reservist who was administratively separated just shy of retirement eligibility. Despite a formal acknowledgment from the Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records that an error occurred, Coleman has not been reinstated. The result? A lifetime of military service erased: no pension, no benefits, no honor.

Cases like Coleman’s are not isolated. Reports of officers and senior enlisted personnel being denied reenlistment or separated without clear cause are becoming more frequent across services.

In 2025, the Department of Defense came under scrutiny when Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced a major initiative to reduce senior officer positions under the banner “Less Generals, More GIs.” This reorganization aims to eliminate more than 120 general and flag officer positions, including active duty and National Guard billets, as part of a broader force restructuring (AP News, May 2025). Critics warn that such cuts could disproportionately impact those nearing retirement eligibility, particularly in the Army Reserve and National Guard, raising legal and ethical questions about whether such reductions are also being used to avoid future pension liabilities.

The Silent Impact on Unarmed Services

While headlines often focus on armed service members, unarmed uniformed personnel, like those in USPHS and NOAA Corps face similar risks with even less public scrutiny. These officers aren’t typically governed by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), but are subject to involuntary separations for administrative reasons, including political shifts or agency restructurings.

Several Public Health Service officers who served during the pandemic have reported being placed on sudden administrative leave or being removed from leadership roles in the months leading up to eligibility for 20-year retirement, a devastating blow given the high-risk conditions under which many serve.

A Pattern Across Administrations

While these actions have become more visible under the current administration due to RIF orders and force realignment, they are not new. Both Democratic and Republican administrations have used quiet reductions to shrink federal spending or shift agency priorities. What is new is the volume and the precision with which these discharges are timed, often to occur just before retirement eligibility.

These moves are not just about dollars; they represent a betrayal of trust.

A Legal Fight Worth Having

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, in Washington, DC specializing in military and federal employment law, represent numerous clients caught in this administrative crossfire. “We’re seeing a rise in unlawful terminations under the guise of restructuring,” Sheldon says. “It’s one thing to reform an agency or branch, it’s another to intentionally cut a service member short of the finish line.”

Sheldon emphasizes that these cases are winnable, but only if service members act quickly, document everything, and pursue appeals through Boards for Correction of Military or Naval Records or via litigation in federal court.

What’s at Stake

  • Financial Security: Loss of retirement income and health care for life.
  • Reputation: Discharges close to retirement are often perceived as disciplinary—even when they are administrative.
  • Mental Health: Service members describe feeling “discarded,” “betrayed,” and “humiliated” after decades of service.

Holding the Line

Safe harbor isn’t a loophole. It’s a promise made to every uniformed service member, armed or unarmed, that their dedication will be honored with dignity, not dismissed with a discharge memo days before eligibility. As more stories come to light, it’s incumbent on Congress, the media, and the public to scrutinize why these discharges are happening and who benefits from denying long-serving members their due.

Because the integrity of our institutions depends not just on those who serve, but on how we treat them when they are no longer needed.

 References & Resources

Disclaimer
The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

When Justice Crosses Borders: Defending Veterans’ Rights Beyond the Battlefield

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Joe St. Clair once wore the uniform of the United States Air Force, standing watch in hostile territory during four combat tours in Afghanistan. He didn’t ask whether the nation would have his back if things went wrong — that trust was a given. But now, sitting in a prison cell in Caracas, Venezuela, that trust is being tested in ways no veteran should ever have to endure.

At 33 years old, St. Clair has gone from decorated combat veteran to an unwilling participant in what experts call “hostage diplomacy.” Venezuelan authorities detained him last October near the border with Colombia while he was traveling with a friend. No formal charges have been brought. His possessions were seized. He was transported across an international border without explanation. The U.S. State Department has since classified his detention as “wrongful,” yet St. Clair remains locked inside Rodeo One — a prison infamous for human rights abuses and masked guards who answer to names like “Hitler” and “Demon.”

This case is more than a diplomatic problem. It is a direct challenge to the core principles of military justice and veterans’ rights. Too often, once service members hang up the uniform, the legal protections and structured support that once safeguarded them can dissipate — especially when international borders complicate matters. But military justice isn’t merely a system of courts and codes. It is the embodiment of a promise: that those who step forward to defend the nation will, in turn, be defended by it, wherever they may be.

The Uniform Code of Military Justice may not extend into the hands of foreign governments, but the values it represents do. St. Clair’s wrongful detention violates not just international norms but also the expectations the military instills in every service member — that due process, human dignity, and the rule of law are non-negotiable. His case underscores how veterans remain vulnerable targets in geopolitical disputes. Without the full weight of their government behind them, they risk becoming bargaining chips in conflicts they neither started nor can control.

St. Clair’s imprisonment is a litmus test. Not only of how far the United States is willing to go to protect its citizens abroad but of how firmly military justice advocates and veterans’ rights defenders will stand when the law falls silent in foreign lands. His family’s calls for help should not echo into a void. They should galvanize the Department of Defense, the State Department, Congress, and the legal community to ensure that this veteran — and others like him — are not left to face injustice alone.

The battle for Joe St. Clair’s freedom is not just about securing his release. It is about reaffirming a national commitment to every veteran that their sacrifice does not expire with their service contract. Whether facing courts-martial here at home or unjust imprisonment abroad, they deserve unwavering defense. Our legal obligations may encounter borders. Our moral ones should not.

This nation cannot afford to let a decorated Air Force veteran — one of its own — become a silent casualty in the shadows of foreign prisons.

Stripes: Veteran Service Member Detained

Delay. Defer. Defend. Your Legal Rights Under IRR and National Guard Orders

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Are you in the IRR or National Guard and just received activation orders?

With the potential call up of tens of thousands of those of you who have been marking time in the Individual Ready Reserve (IRR), the National Guard or the Army Reserves for almost a decade now, one needs to act carefully to ensure that you consider your options. You may have established a career, a family, and the responsibilities that come with those things when suddenly you are faced with activation and deployment orders. Your world just blew up. Now what?

Recent events in the Middle East portend activation and deployment orders for thousands, if not a 100,000 service members by the end game. Individuals who have served in the National Guard or Reserves may do so believing their commitment will likely remain restricted to weekends or a few weeks a year. While activation and deployment orders are always possible, these soldiers, sailors, Marines, and airmen may not be prepared, especially those who serve in the IRR, to activate and deploy.

Reservists and members of the National Guard should certainly take note and, of course, have a plan in place, especially if they are not in a position to deploy because of work and/or family obligations. But Congress has also allowed for service members to request delay and exemption from orders, through the delay and exemption board. But you must meet the statutory and regulatory bases. And, like everything, timing is critical.

It is important for Reserve and Guard members to understand the time frames in which they may request a delay or deferment in reporting, or an exemption from active duty, since untimely requests may not be processed, and even timely requests can be severely truncated by not understanding the rules and regulations that govern delay and exemption boards. It is also important to have an understanding of the differences between the types of requests and how they may affect a Reserve or Guard member.

The process varies depending on the military department involved, although if denied, generally appeals are available. Having an experienced attorney from the get-go can be critical since members may not be aware of exactly what information they need to provide before a request is considered. Although the process begins with a phone call or a form which may seem simple enough to complete, it is important to know what information a board is looking for in order to provide the strongest application possible. If past conflicts have taught us anything, it is that National Guard members and reservists need to be prepared. Timing is critical. The bottom line is that before you call the number on your orders to the delay and exemption board, let alone submit the form that governs, consult the rules and regulations that apply — or, better yet — call a qualified legal counsel that can assist you in making the very best case for a delay and exemption of your activation and deployment.

 

 

 

SCOTUS Ruling Changes How VA Disability Claim Appeals Are Handled

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Protecting Your Rights: Why Strong Medical Documentation is Vital for Your VA Disability Claims

By the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Washington, D.C. — The United States Supreme Court’s recent decision in Bufkin v. McDonough (March 5, 2025) has changed the landscape for veterans seeking to challenge the denial of VA disability claims. In a 7-2 ruling, the Court held that the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims must apply a “clear error” standard when reviewing factual findings made by the VA. In practical terms, this means courts are no longer permitted to reassess the evidence independently; they may only overturn a VA decision if it is “clearly erroneous.” (SCOTUS Opinion)

This shift serves as a wake-up call to both active-duty service members and veterans: your best chance to protect your benefits begins at the first step of the process. If you do not thoroughly document your disabilities and service-related injuries from the outset, it becomes far harder to fix mistakes later.

We at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon want to emphasize what this means for you.

When you apply for disability benefits, the VA evaluates your case primarily based on the medical records, service treatment records, and personal statements you provide. Historically, veterans were given a degree of deference under the “benefit of the doubt” rule codified in 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b). However, following Bufkin, even if the evidence is close, unless you can show that the VA made a clear, undeniable mistake, appeals courts are bound to uphold the VA’s decision.

Therefore, the burden is squarely on the veteran to submit compelling, well-documented, and complete evidence from the start.

  • Medical examinations should be thorough and service-connected.
  • Independent medical evaluations (IMEs) can make a powerful difference.
  • Personal statements must be detailed, credible, and consistent.
  • Buddy statements from fellow service members or supervisors should corroborate your claims.
  • Any psychological conditions (such as PTSD) must be clearly diagnosed and linked to specific in-service events.

Additional resources that may assist you:

For active-duty service members, it is crucial to document every injury, illness, and incident while you are still in uniform. Insist that every medical complaint is recorded accurately in your service treatment records. A casual “I’ll tough it out” attitude could cost you dearly years later.

For retirees and separated veterans, if you suspect you were short-changed by the VA or if your condition has worsened, gather updated medical evaluations immediately. Do not rely on the appeal process alone to “correct” a weak record — build the strongest possible case at the earliest opportunity.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon has decades of experience fighting for the rights of service members and veterans nationwide. We understand how to craft persuasive legal arguments, but we cannot stress enough: you are your own best advocate when it comes to creating the factual record the law now demands.

In the wake of Bufkin v. McDonough, protecting your rights is about more than simply applying for benefits — it is about strategically defending your future from the very first form you file.

If you have questions about your disability rating, pending claims, or appeal strategies, contact our office today. We are honored to stand beside those who have served.

 

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents service members and veterans nationwide in matters of military justice, security clearance defense, disability claims, and federal employment rights. Our mission is to ensure that every service member receives the full measure of justice and benefits they deserve.

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

Disclaimer: This content is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please contact an attorney for personalized guidance.

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.