Tag: Due Process

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal- Defense Holds Ground

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

Government Pushes Reconsideration in Airman’s Landmark Reversal — Defense Holds Ground

Just weeks after the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) issued a unanimous ruling overturning the wrongful conviction of Senior Airman whose life was derailed by withheld evidence, the government is attempting to roll back the decision.

On September 15, 2025, the CAAF found that prosecutors violated Brady v. Maryland by withholding exculpatory evidence and destroying investigative files, ultimately denying SrA Bryce Roan a fair trial. That ruling restored his rank, pay, and dignity after years of injustice.

Now, the Air Force Government Trial and Appellate Division has filed a Petition for Reconsideration, arguing that the Court overlooked evidence and that the exoneration was premature.

The Government’s Position

In its October 8 reply, the government contends that SrA Roan “failed to show” any admissible proof that dimethylhexylamine (DMHA), the ingredient found in the pre-workout powder central to the case, could cause a false positive for cocaine. The brief dismisses the cumulative evidence recognized by the Court, claiming the “missing link” in Roan’s defense is scientific proof and that no witness could testify that DMHA could trigger such a false reading.

The government further asserts that because Roan’s roommate, SSgt N.W., did not use the DMHA defense after being granted a continuance in his own trial, the theory lacks credibility, arguing that if the defense were viable, it would have been used then.

The Defense Fires Back

In a powerful response filed October 6, the defense team led by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan, rejected the government’s attempt to relitigate settled law.  She argued that the request for reconsideration was nothing more than “a refusal to accept accountability,” emphasizing that Supreme Court precedent requires courts to assess all suppressed evidence cumulatively, not isolate it piecemeal.

“Reconsideration is not a second bite at the apple,” the defense brief stated. “It is an audacious attempt to recast accountability as error.”

The defense brief reaffirms that the withheld evidence, including destroyed files, undisclosed interviews, and internal Air Force communications that stripped Roan of the ability to raise an innocent ingestion defense. The filing underscores that it was government misconduct, not defense deficiency, that created the evidentiary gap the government claims was overlooked.

“Having failed to disclose, failed to preserve, and failed to confront its obligations,” wrote, “the Government now faults this Court for holding it accountable.”

What’s Next

With both sides’ briefs now before the CAAF, the nation’s highest military court will determine whether to grant reconsideration or stand by its unanimous ruling. For SrA Roan, the case is about more than legal precedent, it’s about reclaiming a life and career nearly lost to bureaucratic indifference and prosecutorial overreach.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a leading firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans before military and federal courts. The firm is nationally recognized for its work defending those whose rights and careers have been jeopardized by unjust actions within the military justice system.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee similar outcomes.

When the System Reboots But Justice Doesn’t

Posted on by Becky Haugen

MSPB

The Merit Systems Protection Board is back—at least on paper.

Last week, the Senate confirmed James Woodruff, President Trump’s nominee, to the federal board that hears grievances from government employees. His appointment restores a quorum to an agency that has sat largely paralyzed for months after the administration dismissed its last Democratic-appointed member.

To the casual observer, this looks like progress: the board can now issue decisions again. But as Politico’s Hassan Ali Kanu reported, the change could actually make it harder for federal employees  and by extension, uniformed service members in comparable administrative processes to get meaningful relief.

For nearly a year, federal workers who were fired or disciplined successfully argued in court that any complaint filed with the MSPB would be “futile.” Judges agreed, allowing employees to bypass a broken system and seek justice directly in federal court. Now, with a quorum technically restored, that legal opening is closing—even though the board remains buried under a fast-growing backlog of tens of thousands of appeals.

The symbolism is powerful: the White House can claim the machinery of due process has been repaired. But substance tells another story. A board stacked with political appointees and crippled by delay is not an engine of fairness, it’s a holding pen for accountability.

Federal workers, and the service members who rely on parallel review systems such as the Boards for Correction of Military Records, deserve a process that is independent, timely, and transparent. Restoring seats without restoring trust merely replaces paralysis with pretense.

Until Congress imposes statutory deadlines for decisions, guarantees the right to court review when agencies stall, and ensures balanced representation on these boards, justice for the federal workforce will remain bureaucratized, not delivered.

Denial of Benefits and Delayed Justice for Federal Personnel and Military Service Members

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Rainbow pride flag

Federal and Military Employees Face Challenges to Retirement Benefits and Constitutional Rights Amid Policy Shifts

In August 2025, the U.S. Air Force rescinded previously approved Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) benefits for service members with 15 to 18 years of service. While this action has largely affected transgender personnel, it signals broader administrative discretion that could impact retirement and benefits decisions for a wider group of federal and military employees.

Executive Order 14183, signed in January 2025, reinstated restrictions on transgender military service, citing unit cohesion and readiness concerns. The Supreme Court allowed enforcement of this order in May 2025, and the Department of Defense has since issued guidance to proceed with separations. These shifts, coupled with administrative backlogs caused by the government shutdown, have created uncertainty for many service members who rely on timely processing of retirement and benefits applications.

Constitutional and Legal Implications

The rescission of benefits raises serious constitutional concerns. Under the Equal Protection Clause, policies that discriminate based on characteristics such as gender identity or sexual orientation must meet strict scrutiny. Additionally, abrupt denial of earned benefits implicates the Due Process Clause, as service members and federal employees may be deprived of property without meaningful opportunity for review.

Legal challenges are ongoing, including lawsuits such as Talbott v. USA, where advocacy organizations are contesting the constitutionality of the transgender service restrictions. These cases may set important precedents affecting the broader federal workforce.

Impact on the Broader LGBTQ+ Workforce

While policy changes have specifically targeted transgender service members, gay, bisexual, and other LGBTQ+ military and federal employees are also affected. Administrative delays, reduced government operations, and shifting policy interpretations create uncertainty for all personnel relying on earned benefits and retirement eligibility. Even those not directly targeted may face obstacles in planning their careers, navigating appeals, or securing timely access to benefits. This environment underscores the importance of strong legal protections and oversight to ensure that all LGBTQ+ service members and federal employees receive fair treatment and due process.

Government Shutdown Complications

The ongoing government shutdown further complicates the situation. Limited operations in military and federal offices slow the processing of appeals, retirement applications, and administrative remedies. Federal courts, operating with reduced staffing, are also experiencing delays, slowing the adjudication of constitutional and administrative claims. This combination of policy reversals and shutdown-related delays increases the risk that personnel may be separated or denied benefits before their claims can be fully reviewed.

Legal Remedies and Next Steps

Affected service members and federal employees may pursue several avenues:

  1. Administrative Appeals: Filing appeals within the Department of Defense or relevant federal agency.
  2. Judicial Review: Seeking federal court adjudication on constitutional and administrative law grounds.
  3. Class Action Litigation: Addressing systemic effects when multiple personnel are impacted.

Engaging experienced counsel specializing in military and federal employment law is essential to protect rights and benefits.

Recent News Articles and Resources

Disclaimer:
This update is for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. Service members and federal employees should consult an attorney specializing in military or federal employment law for guidance.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., provides expert legal representation to military service members and federal employees facing legal challenges. Specializing in military justice, veterans’ rights, and federal employment law, the firm is committed to protecting the rights, benefits, and careers of those who serve our nation.

 

 

USPHS Commander Seeks Correction of Records After Disputed Reprimand and Denial of Relief by Surgeon General

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commander is fighting to restore the officer’s reputation and career following a reprimand, contending it was unjust, retaliatory, and issued outside the bounds of lawful authority. The case, filed with the Board for Correction of Public Health Service Commissioned Corps Records (BCMR), argues that the Letter of Reprimand (LOR) issued in October 2023, was procedurally and legally flawed.

Represented by attorney Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the Commander’s filing asserts that the LOR was issued not only in violation of Commissioned Corps policy (CCI 211.04 and CCI 211.07) but was also motivated by retaliation after the officer raised concerns about understaffing and promotion irregularities within the Bureau of Health Services at the Eloy Detention Center.

According to the complaint, the officer formally requested relief through the Surgeon General’s redress process, submitting evidence of improper conduct, lack of authority by the issuing official, and violations of due process. But the Surgeon General, VADM Vivek Murthy, ultimately declined to grant relief, stating that “the evidence presented does not demonstrate a violation of law, executive order, regulation, or policy,” nor was the issuance “arbitrary and capricious.”

Attorney Morgan disputes this finding. “The facts clearly show that the reprimand was issued by someone without the lawful authority to do so. It followed weeks of the Commander raising staffing concerns and requesting help. Instead of support, the officer was punished for performing the duties assigned—and that’s precisely why the BCMR exists: to correct these injustices,” said Morgan.

The Commander’s petition to the BCMR requests:

  • Rescission of the LOR;
  • Expungement from the officer’s official record;
  • Restoration of lost specialty pay and backpay; and,
  • Any other equitable relief the Board finds appropriate.

The filing includes legal arguments grounded in the Administrative Procedure Act, Privacy Act, and internal USPHS regulations. The Commander also provided documentation showing that the decisions regarding patient scheduling were consistent with operational policy during a staffing shortfall—not acts of misconduct.

The case represents a broader concern for many USPHS officers navigating opaque disciplinary procedures that can derail careers, especially when whistleblowing or reporting internal issues.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
Located in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier military and federal employment law firm. With more than two decades of experience, the firm defends service members and federal employees in cases involving courts-martial, administrative separations, security clearances, and record corrections.

Disclaimer:
This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Each case is unique, and outcomes will vary depending on specific facts and circumstances.

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.