Category: Spotlight

The Legal Dilemma for Service Members: Defending Constitutional Rights Amidst Military Transparency Failures

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Introduction: A Battle on Two Fronts

Service members swear an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution, yet many find themselves fighting to secure their own constitutional rights within the military justice system. When the Army and the military fails to maintain transparency and holds service members to a different standard, it creates a legal paradox where those who defend freedom are deprived of due process and justice. This article explores the legal challenges service members face in defending their rights, the impact of the lack of transparency, and potential reforms to address systemic issues.

The Legal Landscape: Military Law vs. Constitutional Protections

The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) governs service members’ conduct, but conflicts arise when military policies violates constitutional rights. The courts have historically deferred to military authority, limiting service members’ ability to seek redress through civilian judicial systems. Some key areas of concern include:

  • Due Process Violations: Service members accused of misconduct may face rushed investigations, suppressed evidence, or undue command influence that compromises fair trials.
  • Freedom of Speech Restrictions: While service members accept some limitations on speech, cases have emerged where military leadership selectively punishes expression contrary to official narratives.
  • Lack of Transparency in Court-Martial Proceedings: In some instances, exculpatory evidence has been withheld, leading to wrongful convictions and reputational harm.

Case Studies: When the Army Lacked Transparency

Fort Lawton Court-Martial (1944)

In one of the most egregious cases of military injustice, 28 African American soldiers were convicted in the death of an Italian POW. Decades later, it was revealed that prosecutors had concealed key evidence, leading to the convictions being overturned in 2007. (Source)

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld (2006)

This Supreme Court ruling highlighted the military’s failure to adhere to established legal procedures when it attempted to prosecute Guantanamo detainees under unconstitutional military commissions. (Source)

McVeigh v. Cohen (1998)

A service member successfully challenged the Navy’s illegal invasion of privacy, illustrating the military’s selective application of policies when transparency is absent. (Source)

The Army’s Double Standard: A Two-Tiered System of Justice

One of the greatest concerns for service members is the uneven application of military justice. Senior officers accused of misconduct often receive administrative slaps on the wrist, while lower-ranking service members face severe punitive measures for minor infractions. This disparity erodes trust in the system and discourages reporting of misconduct.

  • Whistleblower Reprisals: Service members who expose corruption, misconduct, or war crimes often face retaliation instead of protection.
  • Selective Prosecution: Certain service members face harsher punishment based on rank, race, or political climate rather than the merits of the case.
  • FOIA Denials and Evidence Suppression: The military frequently withholds key documents, making it nearly impossible for service members to prove their innocence.

Reforms and Solutions: Fixing Military Justice

To address these systemic issues, legal experts and advocacy groups have proposed several reforms:

  1. Independent Military Judiciary – Remove undue command influence by establishing an independent judiciary within the military justice system.
  2. Expanded Civilian Oversight – Increase the ability of civilian courts to review military cases where constitutional rights are at stake.
  3. Strengthening Whistleblower Protections – Enhance legal safeguards for service members who report misconduct.
  4. Mandatory Disclosure of Exculpatory Evidence – Ensure transparency in court-martial proceedings by requiring full disclosure of evidence to the defense.
  5. Uniform Sentencing Standards – Implement standardized sentencing to eliminate discrepancies based on rank or status.

A Call for Justice and Reform

Service members deserve the same constitutional protections they are sworn to defend. The military’s failures in transparency and justice create a legal environment where the very defenders of democracy are denied due process. While legal victories such as Fort Lawton and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld offer hope, widespread reform is necessary to ensure justice for all service members. By addressing these injustices head-on, we can move toward a military justice system that truly upholds the constitutional rights of those who serve.

For more information about our legal services or to schedule a consultation, visit militarydefense.com or contact our office directly.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
Located in Washington, DC, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military defense law firm dedicated to representing service members in a wide range of legal matters. With a proven track record of success, we are committed to protecting the rights of those who serve. Learn more at militarydefense.com.

References:

  • U.S. Army Board for Correction of Military Records, Fort Lawton Exonerations (2007)
  • Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557 (2006)
  • McVeigh v. Cohen, 983 F. Supp. 215 (1998)

Disclaimer:

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

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Clarifies Immunity of U.S. Public Health Service Officers from Personal Liability

Posted on by Becky Haugen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

 

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Clarifies Immunity of U.S. Public Health Service Officers from Personal Liability

 

Washington, D.C. – March 18, 2025 – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, a leading firm specializing in military and federal employment law, reaffirms that United States Public Health Service (PHS) officers are immune from personal liability for their official actions. Read the Ruling.

A recent inquiry posed the question of whether PHS officers need to obtain personal insurance for their official acts. The answer is a definitive no. The Supreme Court decision in Castaneda v. Hui, 599 U.S. 799 (2010) established that PHS officers, like our client a named Defendant in the case, are shielded from personal lawsuits under the Federal law.

In this landmark ruling, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing for a unanimous Court, made it clear that 42 U.S.C. § 233(a) expressly provides that the FTCA is the exclusive remedy for claims related to constitutional violations committed by PHS officers while acting within the scope of their official duties. The ruling precludes Bivens actions against individual officers, ensuring their legal protection in the performance of their critical public health responsibilities.

“This decision underscores the legal protections in place for PHS officers, reinforcing that personal liability is not a concern when they act within their official scope of duty,” said David P. Sheldon, Managing Partner at the firm. “Our firm is dedicated to defending the rights of service members and federal employees, ensuring that legal protections are properly understood and upheld.”

For more information about the legal rights of PHS officers or other federal employees, contact the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC at (202) 546-9575 or visit www.militarydefense.com.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC—headquartered in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC provides premier legal representation for military personnel, federal employees, and public service officers in a wide range of cases, including administrative actions, courts-martial, appeals, and federal employment law. With years of expertise, the firm is a trusted advocate for those serving in uniform and beyond.

Contact:
Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
(202) 546-9575
www.militarydefense.com

 

Disclaimer:

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

 

 

Federal Employees and Commissioned Officers: The Battle Over Wrongful Termination and Reinstatement

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal Employees and Commissioned Officers: The Battle Over Wrongful Termination and Reinstatement

A recent federal court ruling has shaken the landscape for military, federal, and government employees, including commissioned officers under systems such as the Commissioned Officer Effectiveness Report (COER). This ruling, which orders the reinstatement of probationary employees who were wrongfully terminated, underscores the importance of accurate personnel records and the significant implications for career advancement, retirement eligibility, and benefits.

The Issue at Hand

A federal judge recently mandated that agencies rehire employees who were wrongfully terminated during their probationary periods, restoring full pay, benefits, and removing the termination from their personnel records. Agencies such as the Department of Transportation (DOT), the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) have begun implementing this order, albeit with varying stipulations regarding administrative leave and return-to-work policies. However, the legal battle is far from over, with the Trump administration actively appealing the decision.

The Legal Implications for Federal and Military Employees

For many federal employees, a wrongful termination can have career-defining consequences. Federal workers rely on continuous service to qualify for promotions, tenure, and retirement benefits. The wrongful termination of an employee, particularly one in their probationary period, could mean lost time toward service credits that impact:

  • Retirement eligibility: Federal and military retirement systems are built on service years. A break in service or an incorrect record indicating termination could disqualify employees from reaching necessary service thresholds.
  • Promotions and career advancement: In competitive fields such as the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS), military branches, and federal agencies, a termination on record—wrongfully or not—could unfairly hinder promotion eligibility and career progression.
  • Access to benefits: Benefits such as healthcare, pension plans, and administrative leave allowances are directly tied to employment records. A wrongful termination that is not corrected may permanently deprive employees of their rightful entitlements.

Correcting the Record: Legal Recourse for Federal and Military Employees

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon specialize in assisting military and federal employees in appealing wrongful terminations, navigating the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR), and ensuring that personnel records accurately reflect continuous service. With this recent ruling, employees must act swiftly to:

  1. Ensure their records are corrected – The court order emphasizes that terminated employees must have their records expunged of termination notices, ensuring their official personnel folders (OPF) reflect uninterrupted service.
  2. Seek legal assistance for appeals – Employees who suspect wrongful termination or adverse personnel actions should seek legal guidance to navigate appeals through agencies such as the BCMR or the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB).
  3. Protect future benefits and career progression – If termination records are not corrected, employees may face challenges in qualifying for future employment, retirement benefits, and promotions.

A Precarious Future for Federal Workers

Despite the court ruling, the political landscape remains uncertain. The Trump administration has vowed to appeal the decision, and agencies are submitting workforce reduction plans that could lead to further layoffs. With millions of federal employees in limbo, vigilance is necessary to ensure fair treatment and protection of career rights.

For military and federal workers facing wrongful termination or service record discrepancies, legal intervention is crucial. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon continue to advocate for federal employees, ensuring their records are corrected, their rights are defended, and their careers remain on track. If you or someone you know is affected by these emerging issues, seeking legal counsel promptly can make the difference between lost career opportunities and a restored future in federal service.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier legal firm dedicated to defending the rights of military personnel, federal employees, and government workers. With extensive experience in military justice, federal employment law, and appeals, the firm provides expert legal counsel for those facing wrongful termination, service record corrections, and administrative appeals.

For more information or to schedule an initial consultation, visit www.militarydefense.com or call (202) 546-9575.

Resources

 

Disclaimer:

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

Why Military Members Choose The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon for Medical Evaluation Board Defense

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Defending Your Career: Why Military Members Choose The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon for Medical Evaluation Board Defense

For both uniformed and non-uniformed military members, the prospect of facing a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) can be daunting. The consequences of an unfavorable MEB outcome can significantly jeopardize a service member’s career, benefits, and future opportunities. This is where the expertise of The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon comes into play, providing robust legal guidance and representation during one of the most challenging phases of a military career.

Navigating the Complex MEB Process

The MEB process is inherently complicated. Whether you are an active-duty service member or part of the United States Public Health Service (USPHS), the evaluation involves a rigorous review of your medical fitness and readiness. A misstep in this process may result in severe repercussions, including loss of career credits, promotions, and even benefits. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon specialize in ensuring that every step of the MEB process is handled with precision. Their legal guidance ensures that:

  • Members’ Rights Are Protected: By providing thorough representation, they work to ensure that the proper reviews are conducted, safeguarding the service member’s legal rights.
  • Career and Benefits Are Secured: The firm’s proactive approach helps maintain a member’s present career status while also preserving long-term benefits, promotions, and medical funding.
  • Informed Decisions Are Made: Navigating an MEB requires accurate and current information. The firm assists in ensuring that every decision is well-informed and in the best interest of the service member’s career.

The Critical Role of Legal Representation

Uniformed and non-uniformed military members alike face significant challenges during the MEB process. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon understand that the stakes are high. When a member is confronted with allegations regarding readiness or fitness, the impact can extend far beyond immediate career setbacks. Legal representation becomes indispensable because:

  • It Provides Expert Guidance: With specialized knowledge in military and public health service law, the firm is well-equipped to challenge unjust decisions and protect the client’s interests.
  • It Secures Long-Term Career Prospects: Proper legal support can be the difference between an MEB decision that derails a career and one that fairly represents the member’s potential for future service and advancement.
  • It Reduces the Risk of Injustice: An MEB is not just a review of medical conditions; it is a directional shift in a member’s career. Without the support of experienced legal counsel, service members risk losing hard-earned benefits and career achievements.

The Importance of Timely MEB Retirement

A critical aspect often overlooked in the discussion of MEBs is the timing of retirement from the board. When members are retired from the MEB process at an appropriate rate, several key benefits emerge:

  • Prevention of Career Disruption: Timely retirement from the MEB can prevent prolonged uncertainty and the potential loss of career credits. It ensures that service members can continue to pursue their professional goals without undue interruption.
  • Maintaining Readiness and Fitness: For both uniformed and non-uniformed members, being retired from the MEB process at the right time helps maintain their operational readiness and ensures that their physical and mental fitness is accurately represented.
  • Protecting Future Opportunities: When legal experts secure an appropriate rate of MEB retirement, it safeguards a member’s eligibility for promotions, advanced training, and future service opportunities. This not only protects current career standing but also sets the stage for long-term success.

A Partnership Built on Trust and Expertise

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon have built a reputation for providing the highest level of care to service members facing the MEB process. Their commitment to excellence, deep understanding of military and public health service regulations, and a track record of successful case management make them an invaluable ally for any military member. By hiring their services, members are not merely hiring a lawyer; they are securing a partnership dedicated to defending their rights, preserving their career achievements, and ensuring a just evaluation process.

Conclusion

For uniformed and non-uniformed military members facing the daunting challenges of a Medical Evaluation Board, expert legal representation is not just beneficial—it is essential. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon offer comprehensive legal support designed to protect service members’ rights, secure long-term career benefits, and ensure that the MEB process is handled fairly and efficiently. By prioritizing appropriate retirement from the MEB process, they help safeguard not only the immediate career prospects of service members but also their future in service.

Disclaimer:

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

Federal Rehiring Order: The Legal Ramifications of Non-Compliance

Posted on by Becky Haugen

In a landmark decision that has sent shockwaves through the federal bureaucracy, U.S. District Judge William Alsup has ordered several federal agencies to immediately rehire tens of thousands of probationary employees. Issued on March 13, 2025, the ruling challenges the Trump administration’s accelerated effort to downsize the workforce—a move Judge Alsup described as a “sham” designed to bypass established legal procedures. At the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, we are closely monitoring the evolving legal landscape surrounding this decision, particularly the significant implications if federal agencies choose not to comply.

Please note: This article is a reflection of the current ruling and does not constitute actual legal advice. For personalized guidance, please contact our firm to schedule a consultation.

The Ruling at a Glance

Judge Alsup’s decision specifically targets the mass firings orchestrated by the government’s central human resources office. The judge characterized these terminations as unlawful, arguing that the administration’s actions were a deliberate attempt to avoid statutory procedures required for a legitimate reduction in force. Importantly, while the ruling mandates immediate reinstatement of the affected employees, it also clarifies that federal agencies retain the authority to conduct future layoffs—provided they strictly adhere to legal protocols. politico.com

Legal Issues Surrounding Non-Compliance

Federal agencies are bound by both statutory requirements and judicial oversight. Failure to comply with the judge’s ruling could trigger a range of legal consequences:

  1. Contempt of Court:
    Non-compliance with a federal court order may lead to a contempt of court ruling. Such a ruling could result in fines, sanctions, or other penalties aimed at enforcing judicial authority. Agencies that ignore the order risk not only legal sanctions but also damage to their reputations as stewards of public trust.
  2. Prolonged Litigation:
    Should any agency choose to defy the ruling, it may face further litigation. This could involve additional lawsuits initiated by federal employee unions, advocacy groups, or affected employees. Extended litigation would likely incur significant costs and further strain agency resources, compounding the administrative and legal challenges already at play.
  3. Administrative Repercussions:
    Non-compliance might also prompt intervention by oversight bodies, such as the Merit Systems Protection Board and the Federal Labor Relations Authority. Judge Alsup’s ruling hinted at concerns regarding the administration’s effort to dilute the effectiveness of these agencies. Their diminished oversight could result in more stringent future regulations and oversight mechanisms being imposed on non-complying agencies.
  4. Political and Public Backlash:
    Beyond the legal realm, agencies that defy a clear judicial mandate may encounter severe political repercussions. Such actions could undermine public confidence in the federal government and invite scrutiny from lawmakers, further complicating an already politically charged environment.

Strategic Considerations for Federal Agencies

Given these potential consequences, federal agencies must weigh their options carefully. The Law Offices of David P Sheldon advise that any decision to contest the ruling must be accompanied by robust legal justifications and a clear strategy for addressing the statutory requirements of a reduction in force. Agencies might consider the following strategies:

  • Engage in Immediate Compliance:
    By reinstating the affected employees as ordered, agencies can avoid immediate legal sanctions and mitigate the risk of additional litigation. Compliance does not preclude future layoffs, provided that all actions comply with the law.
  • Seek Clarification on Legal Procedures:
    Agencies may explore avenues to negotiate or clarify the procedures for lawful reductions in force. This could involve collaborative discussions with judicial authorities and oversight bodies to ensure that future workforce reductions meet all legal requirements.
  • Prepare for Enhanced Oversight:
    Non-compliance is likely to result in heightened scrutiny from both internal and external watchdogs. Agencies should prepare for increased audits, investigations, and potential oversight actions that could further impact their operational efficiency.

The legal landscape following Judge Alsup’s ruling is fraught with challenges for federal agencies. Non-compliance is not a viable option if agencies wish to avoid the cascading effects of contempt charges, protracted litigation, and administrative sanctions. The decision serves as a stern reminder that adherence to the rule of law remains paramount—even in politically charged times.

Again, this article does not constitute legal advice. It reflects current judicial developments and is intended for informational purposes only. For legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances, please contact the Law Offices of David P Sheldon to schedule a consultation.

For further details on this ruling and its broader implications, please refer to the original coverage by Politico.

politico.com

Disclaimer:

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

Unlawful Discharges and the Erosion of Service Benefits: A Call for Accountability

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal employees, military personnel, and other uniformed service members are increasingly facing unlawful discharges—terminations that not only strip them of their rightful full-service benefits but also tarnish their records. This issue represents not just an administrative oversight, but a profound injustice that disrupts the careers and retirement security of those who have dedicated their lives to public service.

The Hidden Crisis: Disregarded Benefits and Unlawful Releases

When federal agencies release employees without providing full service benefits, the consequences extend far beyond the immediate loss of job security. Many affected individuals are left with:

  • Incomplete Service Records: These records directly impact their eligibility for full retirement benefits.
  • Loss of Retirement Security: Without acknowledgment of complete service, veterans and federal employees risk receiving reduced pensions, threatening their long-term financial stability.
  • Professional Stigma: Unlawful discharges can tarnish a professional reputation, making it difficult to secure future employment within public service.

Such practices not only undermine the rights of those who have served but also weaken the trust between public servants and the government they represent.

The Impact on Federal and Uniformed Service Members

The ripple effects of disregarded service benefits are both personal and systemic. When full-service contributions are ignored:

  • Retirement Earnings are Compromised: Many employees have dedicated decades of service, only to find that their retirement earnings are now based on incomplete service records.
  • Career Progression is Hampered: The damage to a service record can hinder promotions and other opportunities within federal agencies.
  • Moral and Psychological Harm: Being discharged unlawfully creates a sense of betrayal and devalues the sacrifice made by these individuals.

The harm extends beyond the individual, affecting the overall morale and retention of dedicated public servants who may feel that their service is not properly respected or rewarded.

The Legal Challenge and the Need for Redress

In light of these injustices, legal recourse has become essential. A growing number of cases reveal systemic issues where federal agencies have unlawfully discharged employees. Legal experts argue that:

  • Accountability Must Be Enforced: Agencies must honor the service contributions of their employees by ensuring all benefits are fully recognized.
  • Policy Reforms are Urgent: Updated regulations and strict oversight are necessary to protect the rights of federal and uniformed service members.
  • Restoration of Benefits is Critical: Affected individuals deserve a fair reassessment of their service records to restore lost benefits and preserve their retirement security.

About the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, Washington, DC

The law offices of David P Sheldon are dedicated to advocating for military, uniformed service, and federal employees who have been wronged by unlawful discharge practices. Based in Washington, DC, the firm offers:

  • Expert Legal Representation: With a focus on the rights of public servants, David P Sheldon and his team understand the complexities of service-related legal issues.
  • Commitment to Justice: The firm fights relentlessly for fair treatment and the restoration of full service benefits for those whose records have been unjustly damaged.
  • Personalized Legal Strategies: Every case is approached with an individualized strategy, ensuring that the unique circumstances of each client are thoroughly represented in pursuit of justice.

Disclaimer:

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

Titling. What?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

“Titled, Say What?”

By David P. Sheldon, Esq. & Ashleen M. Williams, Ph.D.

So, you left your previous duty station and, despite a bumpy departure due to an investigation, there were never any charges. Now at your new duty station and up for promotion, you find that during your intake screening you are not being detailed because you were “Titled.”

If you have been investigated for a crime such as theft, sexual assault, or another issue, you may have been titled. “Titling” is the indexing of a subject in national criminal databases like the Defense Central Index of Criminal Investigations (DCII) or the Army Crimes Record Center. Even if you were not charged with a crime or were later exonerated, you might have been titled because the standard is only “credible information.” This means that an investigating officer has wide discretion and can list your name in these databases simply on the basis of an investigation. In contrast, a criminal conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, a much higher standard than that required for titling.

How Do You Know If You Have Been Titled?

If a law enforcement agency—such as OSI, Army CID, or NCIS—places your name in the “title block” of their investigative report, you have been titled. Although titling may appear administrative or even benign, it can have significant adverse consequences for both your military and civilian career. For example, this information might surface during background checks, potentially resulting in the denial of job opportunities or visas.

Why Does It Matter If You Have Been Titled?

Your name remains in the database unless you can demonstrate that there was no credible evidence to justify the titling decision. Consequently, the decision to title someone may have long-lasting effects. Some examples include:

  • Security Clearances: Ongoing issues with clearance applications.
  • Employment Opportunities: Future job or visa applications may be affected.
  • Duration of Records: Nearly thirty agencies have access to databases like the DCII, and records are maintained for up to 40 years, meaning the “shadow of suspicion” could follow you for your entire career.

Options for Removing a Title

While challenging a titling decision is an uphill battle, all hope is not lost. Attorneys at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon can help you obtain the information regarding your record and work to clear your name. The 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) opened a pathway for service members to challenge a titling. Under the 2021 NDAA, a service member can request a correction, expungement, or removal of personally identifying information from a law enforcement or criminal investigative report, an index item or entry, or any other record maintained in connection with such a report.

The 2021 NDAA states that the following factors must be considered when challenging a title:

  1. Evidence: The extent or lack of corroborating evidence against the individual concerning the offense.
  2. Disciplinary Action: Whether any adverse administrative, disciplinary, judicial, or other actions were initiated.
  3. Outcome: The type, nature, and outcome of any actions taken.

Even though the military describes the decision to title as purely administrative, its long-term effects are very real. Our firm is committed to ensuring that your record accurately reflects the truth, so you don’t have to carry the burden of undue suspicion.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is dedicated to protecting the rights of service members and civilians alike. With years of experience in administrative law and criminal investigations, our team works tirelessly to assist those affected by erroneous titling and other related issues. Our mission is to help you clear your record, restore your reputation, and secure the future you deserve. We pride ourselves on a commitment to integrity, professionalism, and personalized legal advocacy.

Defending Privileging: What’s at Stake for Medical Practitioners?

Posted on by Becky Haugen

What Is Privileging and Why Does It Matter?

Privileging is the process that grants professionals—such as service members, medical practitioners, and federal employees—the authority to perform specific duties within their organizations. For medical providers, it allows them to practice within military or federal hospitals, while for public health professionals, it ensures their ability to work in federal facilities. Losing this privilege can mean being unable to work, losing income, and potentially forfeiting years of service toward retirement.

Key Areas Where Privileges Can Be Revoked

  1. Clinical and Professional Misconduct

Medical and psychological practitioners can lose their privileges due to accusations of clinical negligence, malpractice, or ethical violations. These accusations may stem from patient complaints, workplace conflicts, or administrative errors. Without due process, these allegations can lead to the loss of credentials, barring them from practice.

  1. Administrative and Credentialing Issues

Failure to maintain updated certifications, licensure, or comply with training requirements can trigger a privileging review. Federal and military medical facilities impose strict compliance guidelines, and any lapse can result in revocation.

  1. Behavioral and Psychological Evaluations

Military personnel and healthcare workers may undergo fitness-for-duty evaluations. A determination of impairment—whether due to stress, mental health concerns, or substance use—can lead to suspension or permanent loss of privileging.

  1. Security Clearance and Allegations of Misconduct

Service members and federal healthcare providers working in secure facilities must maintain security clearances. Any accusations of misconduct, including financial irresponsibility, substance abuse, or workplace conflicts, can impact their ability to continue working in their respective fields.

  1. Adverse Employment Actions and Political Retaliation

For federal employees, adverse privileging actions can be tied to workplace disputes, whistleblowing, or political retaliation. Losing privileges due to an employer’s allegations—whether substantiated or not—can jeopardize not just their career but also their pension and federal employment benefits.

The Far-Reaching Consequences of Losing Privileges

Losing privileges impacts service members, public health professionals, and medical practitioners in multiple ways:

  • Loss of Income – Without clinical or operational privileges, professionals can be removed from patient care and duty assignments, significantly reducing their earnings.
  • Denial of Access to Facilities – Revoked privileging bars individuals from using government or military medical facilities, limiting their ability to practice.
  • Retirement and Benefits at Risk – Federal employees and military personnel facing privileging actions may lose their ability to accrue time toward retirement, potentially forfeiting pensions and benefits.
  • Career Stagnation and Reputational Damage – A privileging revocation can be career-ending, making it difficult to secure employment elsewhere, especially in federal or military sectors.

How the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Fights for Your Rights

When professionals face adverse privileging actions, they need a strong legal defense to challenge allegations and restore their rights. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, located in Washington, D.C., specializes in representing military service members, public health professionals, and federal employees who are at risk of losing their privileges.

Our Proven Track Record

  • Successfully challenging privileging revocations in military and federal healthcare facilities.
  • Representing professionals in administrative hearings and appeals.
  • Advocating for reinstatement of security clearances and credentials.
  • Protecting federal employees from wrongful termination and benefits loss.

If you are facing a privileging issue, don’t wait until it’s too late. Contact the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon today to defend your career and secure your future.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military law firm dedicated to defending the rights of service members and veterans. With over 20 years of experience, David P. Sheldon and his team specialize in military discharge upgrades, corrections to military records, court-martial defense, and appeals before military review boards. Their firm has successfully helped countless active duty, reservists and veterans restore their honor, benefits, and rightful recognition of service.

If you’re a uniformed or non-uniformed military member with an “other than honorable” discharge or an active service member facing administrative challenges, now is the time to act. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon can provide expert legal guidance to ensure your case is handled effectively before any policy changes take effect.

For more information, visit www.militarydefense.com or call (202) 546-9575 to schedule a consultation.

Disclaimer:

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

The High Stakes of Security Clearance Issues for Federal Employees and Contractors

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The High Stakes of Security Clearance Issues for Federal Employees and Contractors

For federal employees and government contractors, holding a security clearance is often a prerequisite for employment. However, when a clearance is under investigation, suspended, or revoked, the consequences can be severe, affecting both job stability and future career opportunities. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, based in Washington, DC, has extensive experience assisting individuals in navigating security clearance challenges and appeals.

Employment Implications of Security Clearance Issues

When a security clearance is under investigation or suspended, the immediate consequence is often the loss of access to classified information. Many federal positions and contractor roles require active clearances, and without them, employees may be placed on unpaid leave, reassigned to non-classified roles (if available), or even terminated. Contractors, whose work is frequently contingent upon an active clearance, often face immediate job loss.

Moreover, a revoked clearance can have long-term repercussions, making it difficult to secure new employment within federal agencies or government-related industries. Without a clearance, individuals may be ineligible for roles that align with their expertise and previous experience, significantly impacting their earning potential.

Limitations in Seeking Additional Contracts or Employment

Once a security clearance is revoked, securing new employment in the defense, intelligence, or other classified sectors becomes challenging. Many job postings explicitly require an active clearance, and even if an individual attempts to reapply for a position, past revocations can surface in background checks, raising red flags for potential employers. Additionally, clearance issues may delay or entirely prevent individuals from securing new contracts, which is particularly problematic for independent contractors and consultants reliant on government work.

Common Causes for Security Clearance Investigations and Revocations

Several factors can trigger a security clearance investigation, suspension, or revocation, including:

  • Financial Issues: Significant debt, delinquent payments, or bankruptcy may raise concerns about financial stability and susceptibility to coercion.
  • Criminal Conduct: Arrests, charges, or convictions can indicate a risk to national security.
  • Foreign Influence: Close ties to foreign nationals or financial interests in foreign entities can be seen as potential threats.
  • Substance Abuse: Drug and alcohol misuse can lead to concerns about reliability and judgment.
  • False Statements: Providing misleading or false information during the clearance process can result in immediate disqualification.
  • Unauthorized Information Handling: Mishandling classified information or violations of security protocols can prompt clearance suspension.
  • False Statements by Others: Malicious or incorrect allegations made by colleagues, supervisors, or others can lead to clearance reviews and revocations.
  • Political Retribution: In some cases, changes in administration or shifts in political climate can lead to clearance reviews as a form of retaliation.
  • Allegations of Inappropriate Use of Access: Claims of misuse of classified information, even if unfounded, can trigger investigations and clearance suspension.
  • Changes in Administration: Transitions in government leadership can bring policy shifts that impact clearance statuses, leading to reevaluations or revocations.

Appealing a Security Clearance Revocation

Individuals facing a clearance suspension or revocation have the right to challenge the decision. The appeals process typically involves:

  1. Receiving a Statement of Reasons (SOR): The agency outlines the reasons for the adverse clearance decision.
  2. Responding to the SOR: The individual must submit a written rebuttal with supporting evidence and mitigating factors.
  3. Requesting a Hearing: If the initial response is unsuccessful, a formal hearing before an administrative judge may be necessary.
  4. Further Appeals: If the judge upholds the revocation, additional appeals may be made through agency-specific processes or the Defense Office of Hearings and Appeals (DOHA).

For cases involving false statements by others, political retribution, or inappropriate allegations, individuals may need additional legal strategies, such as filing grievances through their agency, requesting independent investigations, or seeking whistleblower protections. In politically motivated cases, legal arguments demonstrating due process violations or retaliation may be necessary. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon provides experienced legal counsel to individuals navigating security clearance issues, ensuring their rights are protected and that they have the best possible chance of retaining or regaining clearance status.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, located in Washington, DC, is a premier legal firm dedicated to defending military service members, federal employees, and government contractors. With decades of experience, our firm specializes in military law, security clearance appeals, and administrative hearings, advocating for the careers and livelihoods of those who serve and support our nation’s security infrastructure.

For legal assistance with security clearance issues, contact us today at www.militarydefense.com.

Recent High-Profile Security Clearance Revocations:

  1. Revocation of Perkins Coie Law Firm’s Security Clearances (March 2025): President Trump signed an executive order suspending security clearances for employees of Perkins Coie, a law firm that played a key role in commissioning the Steele dossier regarding Trump’s alleged interactions with Russia. This action was part of Trump’s broader strategy to retaliate against perceived adversaries. ​axios.com
  2. Revocation of Security Clearances for Attorneys Associated with Special Counsel Jack Smith (February 2025): President Trump revoked the security clearances of employees at the law firm Covington & Burling, who had provided pro bono services to former special counsel Jack Smith. This move was perceived as a response to the legal challenges Trump faced during his previous term. ​nypost.com
  3. Revocation of Retired General Mark Milley’s Security Clearance (January 2025): Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, under President Trump’s direction, suspended the security detail and clearance of retired General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. This action followed allegations of disloyalty and was part of a series of measures targeting former officials perceived as adversaries. ​axios.com
  4. Revocation of Security Clearance for Australian Defense Force Officer (February 2025): An Australian Army officer was stripped of his security clearance due to concerns about his loyalty to Israel over Australia. The officer admitted he did not regard Israel as a foreign government and would share classified information if requested by the Israeli Defense Forces. ​theguardian.com
  5. Revocation of Security Clearances for Former Intelligence Officials (January 2025): President Trump announced plans to revoke the security clearances of over four dozen former intelligence officials who had signed a letter in 2020 suggesting that the controversy surrounding Hunter Biden’s laptop bore signs of a Russian information operation. ​apnews.com

Disclaimer:

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