Category: Spotlight

Missed Service Related Trauma Reporting Impacts Lost Benefits: How VA Failures and Supreme Court Limits Hurt Veterans with Unreported MST and PTSD

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Unreported Trauma Now Risks a Lifetime of Lost Veterans’ Benefits

Uniformed Military Personnel Leaving the Building

The evolving legal landscape surrounding military discharges, veterans’ benefits, and trauma-related claims, especially those involving military sexual trauma (MST), has reached a critical inflection point. Recent judicial and administrative developments have made one fact painfully clear: service members must ensure that their trauma, mental health diagnoses, and service-connected injuries are fully and accurately documented before they separate from the military. If they don’t, they may lose access to benefits that could have otherwise been rightfully theirs.

This shift in legal and policy frameworks directly affects how we advocate for service members, especially those who experienced MST or other forms of trauma that often go unreported. It is no longer enough to argue the credibility of a veteran’s experience post-discharge. The courts and the VA have begun closing the door on those arguments, placing more weight than ever on what is already recorded in the service member’s file.

The Burden of Silence: Why Trauma Goes Unreported

Military culture has historically been slow to recognize the lasting impact of trauma. Whether due to fear of retaliation, stigma, or command pressure, many service members, particularly those who are survivors of MST, choose not to report incidents while in uniform. The Department of Defense’s own estimates show that over 70% of sexual assault incidents go unreported [DoD SAPR Annual Report, 2023]. This silence, while often a survival tactic, now has lasting legal and financial consequences.

Even when trauma is reported, the system is not built to preserve it properly. Records may be incomplete, improperly coded, or missing altogether. Those gaps are no longer just bureaucratic problems; they are now legal barriers that can render veterans ineligible for the care and compensation they need.

SCOTUS Shuts the Door in Bufkin v. McDonough (2025)

In March 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 22-883, that VA decisions can only be reversed by appellate courts if there is a “clear error” in the original decision. More importantly, the Court made it clear that post-discharge evidence, no matter how compelling, is unlikely to be sufficient to win a benefits claim unless it was already part of the service record.

This decision shifts the evidentiary burden squarely onto the veteran, not only to prove that a trauma occurred, but to prove that it was recorded during service.

For survivors of MST, PTSD, or moral injury, who may not have felt safe enough to report while serving, this is a legal earthquake. Bufkin doesn’t account for the realities of trauma. It only accounts for paperwork.

Read the decision: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-883_3f14.pdf

The GAO Report Confirms a Broken System

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) echoed this concern in its July 2025 report, GAO-25-107354, which found that the Department of Defense and the VA are failing to uniformly apply trauma-sensitive standards—especially in cases involving PTSD and MST. The report identified:

  • Inconsistent application of the “liberal consideration” standard in discharge upgrade boards;
  • Lack of mental health experts involved in board decisions;
  • Documentation gaps in official records that prevent accurate evaluations;
  • Command influence and suppression of trauma reporting that lead to inaccurate characterizations of discharge.

The GAO’s findings support what many attorneys already know: service members are being separated without a full and fair accounting of their trauma, and those errors are nearly impossible to correct after the fact.

Read the GAO Report: https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107354

VA’s Continuing Failure to Handle MST Claims

Despite decades of internal reforms and public promises, the VA still struggles to adjudicate MST-related claims. Recent reporting by Stars and Stripes confirms that MST survivors face:

  • Delays and denials due to lack of corroborating records;
  • Insufficient training for VA staff handling trauma-sensitive cases;
  • A presumption of fraud, rather than credibility, when records are incomplete;
  • Lack of continuity between DoD reporting and VA adjudication.

This dysfunction is especially dangerous in light of Bufkin. The VA now has both the legal right and systemic bias to deny a claim that lacks perfect paperwork—even if the trauma was real and medically verified after discharge.

VA Claim Failures Reported: https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-07-28/gao-finds-inconsistent-discharge-standards-18584037.html

DoD’s Reforms May Be Too Late for Many

Executive Order 14092, signed in 2023, removed command authority from sexual assault prosecutions and placed decisions in the hands of independent military prosecutors. This reform—while necessary—is prospective. It does nothing to correct the failures of the past or to provide redress to those whose records were silenced by fear, retaliation, or command inaction.

DoD Policy Update: https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/article/3479106/executive-order-changes-how-military-handles-sexual-assaults/

What This Means for Service Members

The current legal environment leaves little room for error:

  • If a trauma is not recorded before discharge, it may never be legally recognized.
  • If a disability is not medically linked to service in the record, VA benefits may be denied.
  • If an MST report is missing or suppressed, there may be no path to justice, even with therapy records or affidavits post-service.

Attorneys must now encourage clients, especially those nearing separation, to immediately seek documentation of all physical, psychological, and traumatic incidents. This includes:

  • Visiting military mental health providers;
  • Obtaining written evaluations;
  • Filing IG or EO complaints, even late;
  • Submitting memos for record;
  • Requesting command letters, even if informal;
  • Asking chaplains or counselors for written notes.

Conclusion

We are entering an era where legal advocacy for veterans requires proactive, preventive action. The courts have made it clear: if it’s not in the record, it may as well not have happened.

This is a devastating message for many of our clients, especially those who endured trauma in silence. But it’s also a call to action. As military and veteran attorneys, we must adjust our strategy, inform our clients, and ensure the record tells the truth, before the discharge paperwork is signed.

Citations and Resources

About Us

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for representing military and federal personnel in correction of records, promotion denials, discharge upgrades, and other matters of military justice and federal administrative law.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Outcomes vary based on specific facts and legal circumstances. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

 

Why Discharge Records Matter: GAO Report and Supreme Court Ruling Show Veterans Must Get It Right the First Time

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When service members leave the military, what gets written down on paper, especially in their discharge/separation records can shape the rest of their lives. Those documents can decide whether a veteran gets the health care they need, access to housing, a shot at a stable job, or the ability to attend college. The words printed on a DD-214 don’t just describe how someone left service. They become the gateway, or the roadblock to the benefits they’ve earned.

But what happens when those records aren’t complete? What if important details, like a PTSD diagnosis, sexual trauma, or a brain injury, weren’t included before they left the military? Can those facts be added later? Can justice be restored?

In 2025, two powerful updates made one thing very clear: veterans need to make sure their records are complete and accurate from the very start. First, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) released a major report showing that military discharge review boards are not following the rules. They’re supposed to give “liberal consideration” to veterans with service-connected trauma, but in practice, they’re not applying that rule fairly. In fact, the GAO found that veterans with similar circumstances were often treated very differently depending on which service branch handled their case. The Air Force Discharge Review Board, for example, approved just 18 percent of cases where liberal consideration should have been applied. Other boards, like the Army, approved closer to 49 percent. Even more troubling, many of these boards couldn’t explain why they made the decisions they did. Some didn’t even post the outcomes online, even though they’re required to do so.

Just a few months earlier, the Supreme Court ruled in Bufkin v. McDonough that the Department of Veterans Affairs can’t consider any new evidence if that evidence wasn’t already in the record at the time of the original benefits decision. This means that if a veteran had trauma, but it wasn’t properly diagnosed or wasn’t mentioned at all in their paperwork, the VA can’t go back and add that later. That door is now closed.

For veterans who’ve lived with PTSD, traumatic brain injuries, or military sexual trauma, this ruling is a wake-up call. Many didn’t speak up during service. Others weren’t diagnosed until years later. Some left the military under less-than-honorable conditions because of behavior linked to their trauma. These veterans have spent years trying to explain what happened, hoping to upgrade their discharge status and get access to care. But now, if their record didn’t include the right facts at the right time, they may be locked out of the system forever.

So what does all this mean? It means that the record, the discharge form, the medical files, the evaluations, and the testimony needs to be right the first time. Veterans can’t afford to wait and fix it later. The Supreme Court and the GAO have shown us that once the system decides, there’s often no turning back. That’s why getting legal help early matters so much. Lawyers who understand the discharge process can help veterans gather the right evidence, submit the strongest possible claims, and fight back when decisions don’t follow the law. They can help connect the dots between trauma and service, between symptoms and conduct, and between what a veteran lived through and what the military wrote down.

We’ve seen what happens when veterans don’t have the right records. We’ve also seen what happens when they do. With the right support and the full truth in hand, many are able to get their discharge status upgraded, their VA benefits restored, and their dignity returned. No one should be left behind because the paperwork didn’t tell their full story.

If you’re a veteran facing these challenges, or you know someone who is, now is the time to act. The rules have changed. The burden is higher on the veteran to assure their discharge records are accurate and complete.  It’s important to get it right with help from those who know how to work with the PEB, MEB, and the BCMR.

 

References and Resources

GAO Report – GAO-25-107354 (2025):
https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-25-107354

Bufkin v. McDonough, No. 22-883 (March 2025):
Supreme Court Opinion

Stars and Stripes Coverage:
https://www.stripes.com/veterans/2025-07-28/gao-finds-inconsistent-discharge-standards-18584037.html

DoD Clarification of Liberal Consideration (Hagel and Kurta Memos):
https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Stories/Article/Article/1292904/dod-clarifies-liberal-consideration-for-veterans-discharge-upgrade-requests/

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 recognized military and federal employment law firm. We defend service members’ rights in discharge upgrades, VA benefits, security clearance revocations, and correction of military records. With over 25 years of experience, we are committed to helping veterans and their families secure the justice and recognition they deserve.

Disclaimer

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is different. Veterans seeking benefits or a discharge upgrade should consult a licensed attorney to discuss their individual situation.

Centralizing Coast Guard Legal Processes Will Severely Undermine Coasties Seeking Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When you serve in the Coast Guard, especially out in remote sectors or small boat stations, you learn to depend on your crew, your command, and your local support systems. That includes legal support. So, when the Coast Guard announced it was centralizing Enlisted Administrative Separation Boards,  its legal services, shifting key functions and case processing to a single hub, many in the ranks raised an eyebrow. And they should. Because while this move may look like “streamlining” from the top, for the average enlisted Coastie trying to fight to be retained, it feels more like the Coast Guard just pulled up the ladder.

Let’s be real: Coasties want to serve the Nation and when that is challenged, what they need is access to attorneys who understand their case, to an advocate who knows the local command climate, and to someone who can walk them through the complex processes without judgment or delay.

But with centralization, all of that becomes harder.

Instead of walking down the hallway to meet with a legal officer or reaching out to a JAG familiar with their unit, members now face a faceless, distant bureaucracy. Legal processing centers won’t have the context of the cutter you served on, the command climate you endured, or the operational pressures you faced. They won’t know the nuances of your unit’s leadership or the unique dynamics of life in the CG. Most importantly, they won’t know you.  And that lack of context can mean the difference between being heard or being dismissed.

The impact isn’t just emotional. It’s procedural. Under centralization, communication will flow through generic portals, and not trustworthy legal officers. And for members in isolated duty stations or afloat commands, just getting a response in a timely manner could become its own battle.

Access to justice shouldn’t depend on your zip code or how far you are from a legal office. But this move risks exactly that. It creates a new kind of inequity within the ranks where some Coasties, based on location or assignment, have less meaningful access to legal redress than others. That’s not just bad policy; it’s a threat to due process.

Federal courts have long upheld the principle that service members, though operating within a unique system, are still entitled to fundamental fairness in administrative actions and legal review. When the system becomes so distant and complex that members can’t effectively navigate it, it raises serious questions about whether that fairness is being upheld.

Even more concerning, centralization also raises the very real possibility of Unlawful Command Influence.  Rather than having Board members selected from local commands, presumably members are now generated from USCG Headquarters.  USCGHQ already have an incredible amount of discretion in approving Board separation results.  This will certainly undermine the fairness of the Board process and that is going to mean Coasties do not get a fair shake.

We’ve seen this before in other branches, where so-called “efficiencies” made it harder for service members to be heard. Coast Guard members deserve better. They deserve legal access that is local, personal, and responsive. They deserve a system that understands their lives, not just their case numbers.

This centralization plan may serve bureaucratic goals, but it does so at the cost of individual rights. The Coast Guard can do better. It must.

Because when justice is out of reach, morale sinks, trust erodes and that makes every mission harder.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
Located in Washington, D.C., The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, represents service members from all branches of the U.S. Armed Forces, including the U.S. Coast Guard. We specialize in military justice, appeals, boards of correction, and federal employment law. With decades of experience, our team is dedicated to defending the rights and careers of those who serve.

Disclaimer:
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. If you are a Coast Guard member facing legal challenges or considering filing a complaint, you should seek advice from an attorney experienced in military law.

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.