Tag: Law Offices of David P. Sheldon PLLC

Army Physician Testimonial: How David P. Sheldon, PLLC Protected My Career and Medical License

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Legal Advice for Death Caused by Government

From Contentious Medical Board to a Clean Professional Slate

Issue: Contentious military medical board, MEB/PEB, and protection of medical license

I first contacted David Sheldon’s PLLC when it was becoming clear that my medical board was turning contentious. As a physician, the military was actively working to re-write the record to inappropriately retain me.

During the medical board process David fought a libelous NARSUM and objectively false commander’s statement among other challenges. Colleagues were concerned that I would be retained because of the Army’s history of retaining physicians “no matter what,” and I shared these concerns based on my own observations.  David made the wise decision to bring in outside consultants to review the records, come to independent conclusions and testify at the formal medical board hearing.

With David’s arguments and expert witnesses (combatting my command’s best efforts to retain me), my case was found “unfit” and I am currently in the process of being honorably separated from service with a clean professional slate. He worked hard to simultaneously separate me and protect my medical license (as much as possible) and I faced no adverse professional action on separation, which is a remarkable outcome.

I could not recommend David’s counsel highly enough. I am certain that without his representation that I would have been retained and am not sure if I would have survived (without exaggeration) the remainder of my contract.  If I needed to do it over again, I would choose representation by this firm. If you’re a physician seeking medical board representation, this is a group with real success & what impressed me was that at each step he had a plan for escalation if plan A, B and C failed.

-CPT Dr. (RET), USA MC

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents military service members, physicians, and other
professionals worldwide in medical evaluation boards (MEB), physical evaluation boards (PEB),
adverse actions, and complex military justice and administrative matters. Our team focuses on
protecting your career, your license, and your future.

After Years of Legal Barriers, Client Secures Critical Breakthrough in Mandamus Fight to Restore Full Appellate Review

Posted on by Becky Haugen

DC Barrett Perryman Courthouse

In a case defined by extraordinary perseverance and complex jurisdictional obstacles, a former Guantanamo detainee represented by Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie W. Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has taken a major step forward in the effort to secure the full measure of appellate review guaranteed under federal law.

For more than a decade, the client has fought, often against procedural roadblocks not of their own making, to obtain a lawful review of their conviction by the United States Court of Military Commission Review (USCMCR), as required under 10 U.S.C. § 950f(d). Despite years of delay, shifting interpretations of waiver rules, repeated abeyances, and a novel assertion of the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, the client has refused to abandon the pursuit of lawful, congressionally mandated review.

Today’s development underscores one truth: the client’s courage, resilience, and insistence on the rule of law have kept this case alive when institutions failed to act.

A Story of Unusual Persistence in the Face of Systemic Delay

The client’s path to justice has been anything but direct. Though Congress established mandatory appellate review for military commission cases, the procedural history of this matter has been marked by:

  • Multiple delays and long periods of abeyance at the USCMCR
  • Government-created procedural roadblocks to obtain the record necessary for appeal, requiring mandamus intervention
  • A eventual dismissal based on the fugitive disentitlement doctrine, despite the client’s transfer being conducted under a formal diplomatic agreement—not flight, evasion, or refusal to appear and client remaining subject to lawful extradition

At every stage, the client remained steadfast. At every barrier, the client continued to assert the right Congress guarantees.

“This case has always been about ensuring that the Rule of Law is honored,” said Annie Morgan. “Our client has shown extraordinary strength in the face of procedural obstacles that should never have occurred. Their resilience is the reason we are still moving forward. And we will continue to fight until the statutory right to review is finally fulfilled.”

Why This Case Matters

This fight extends well beyond a single appeal. At its core, it speaks to:

  • The long-standing brokenness of the military commissions systems;
  • The duty of tribunals to exercise the jurisdiction Congress mandates; and
  • The fundamental principle that no person, no matter the forum, should lose their rights due to administrative delay or misapplied doctrine.

Congress was explicit:
The USCMCR “shall review the record in each case submitted to it.” (10 U.S.C. § 950f(d)).

When agencies fail to act, the courts must intervene. That is the purpose of mandamus—and the reason this client’s fight continues.

ABOUT THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier national practice focused on military law, federal employment, veteran’s rights, and the defense of service members across all uniformed services. Our team litigates before military commissions, federal courts, the Board for Correction of Military Records, the MSPB, and agencies across the United States. We are committed to protecting those who serve.

DISCLAIMER

This press release provides general information regarding ongoing litigation and does not offer legal advice. No confidential client details have been disclosed. Past results do not guarantee future outcomes.

 

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.

A Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Veteran’s Fight for Justice Continues in Federal Court Against the U.S. Navy

A decorated U.S. Navy veteran has taken his fight for justice to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, challenging what he contends is an unfair and unlawful disability rating that stripped him of the retirement benefits he earned through combat service. Represented by attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the case asks the appellate court to correct a series of errors by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR).

A Story of Service and Sacrifice

This veteran served honorably as a Petty Officer First Class in covert reconnaissance squadrons, flying dozens of combat missions across Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Balkans. His role placed him in direct danger, tracking enemy positions, calling in strikes, and witnessing devastation at close range.

One mission in particular, an air campaign that resulted in over 180 enemy combatants killed in action, left lasting scars. In the months that followed, he developed the hallmarks of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD): intrusive memories, nightmares, anxiety, and depression. By 2007, Navy doctors determined his PTSD was permanent, ending his career as a flight technician.

Despite his clear diagnosis, the Navy awarded him only a 10% disability rating, far below the 50% rating mandated by federal law (VASRD § 4.129) for service-related PTSD severe enough to cause separation from service. That rating meant severance pay instead of medical retirement, a decision that has denied him lifetime benefits for over 15 years.

A Long Legal Battle

The veteran sought relief through the PDBR, which in 2022 admitted his PTSD was service-connected and warranted a retroactive 50% rating. Yet the Board simultaneously cut his rating back to 10% without ever conducting a follow-up medical examination, contradicting both statute and regulation.

Federal district court upheld the Navy’s decision earlier this year, prompting the veteran to appeal. His case now rests with the D.C. Circuit, where his attorneys argue that the Navy’s actions were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law and that the proper remedy is full medical retirement.

“This case is about more than numbers on a chart,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “It is about honoring the sacrifices of those who served in combat, ensuring that the law is applied fairly, and correcting years of injustice.”

Broader Implications

The outcome of this appeal could have lasting implications for thousands of veterans who were medically separated with low ratings between 2001 and 2009, a period Congress has acknowledged was plagued by systematic under-rating of combat-related disabilities.

For this veteran, the case is deeply personal. “After everything he gave in service to his country, he deserves the benefits promised under law,” Thayer added.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney–client relationship. Every case is unique, and results depend on the facts and circumstances of each matter.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized boutique law firm representing service members, federal employees, and veterans in complex military and federal employment matters. With decades of combined experience, the firm advocates for those facing injustice in courts-martial, boards of inquiry, correction boards, security-clearance cases, and federal appeals.

When the Military Orders Silence: The Hegseth Directive, Navy Reporting Guidance, and the First Amendment Risks

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Social Media Naval Branch

 

New Navy Guidance: Reporting Improper Social Media Use

On September 15, the Chief of Naval Operations released a memo instructing how to receive, refer, and track reports of “unprofessional personal social media use.” Navy Times The memo directs that reports be forwarded through the chain of command, with periodic status updates up to the CNO level, but states that the Chief of Naval Personnel is not to perform investigations unless the matter warrants accountability tied to unprofessional use. Navy Times

This formal process institutionalizes oversight and surveillance of Sailors’ online behavior. It underscores that social media posts are no longer purely personal acts: they are subject to command visibility and may trigger review or discipline.

The Navy Social Media Handbook also confirms that Sailors remain subject to the UCMJ at all times, including off-duty, and that “improper or inappropriate online behavior … may result in administrative or disciplinary action.” CSP Navy /navy.mil

Thus, the Navy is actively building procedural infrastructure to catch and escalate online speech potentially deemed unprofessional.

The “Hegseth Order” & Posts about Charlie Kirk

In parallel, top Defense leadership has signaled strong intent to punish service members for celebratory or mocking posts about the death of Charlie Kirk, a private citizen not holding public office. Reports suggest that commanders have suspended or removed personnel whose posts are under review. Navy Times

Because the target was not in government, service members’ comments about Kirk do not implicate contempt under UCMJ Article 88, which applies to certain high officials. And unless there is a whistleblower scenario or clear misconduct, these posts do not fall cleanly within protected communications.

What is left is a commander invoking good order and discipline as justification to suppress speech.

Constitutional & UCMJ Constraints

  1. Parker v. Levy and Military Speech Limits

The Supreme Court in Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974), upheld that military speech can be restricted when necessary to prevent interference with duty, morale, or discipline. But that case also implies that restrictions must be tied to actual harm or disruption, not imagined ones.

  1. Lawfulness of Orders & Narrow Tailoring

Under military law (e.g. the Manual for Courts-Martial), a service member must obey a lawful order. If an order is overbroad, arbitrary, or lacks a proper military purpose, it may itself be invalid.

An order to silence commentary about a private citizen, without showing that it actually harms unit cohesion, is at risk of being invalidated.

  1. Risk of Political Suppression

When the content suppressed is political or ideological rather than directly linked to military function, the risk is that discipline becomes a form of political censorship. Courts have been wary of allowing the UCMJ to be used as a blunt instrument for silencing dissenting views that do not threaten mission performance (Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980)).

  1. Interaction with Navy Reporting Memo

The Navy’s new memo strengthens the command’s ability to monitor, log, and escalate social media concerns up the chain, potentially amplifying the reach of broad speech restrictions like the Hegseth directive.

Because reporting is formalized, a sailor’s post might be flagged even without direct local command knowledge, increasing the chance of review or discipline for commentary that might otherwise have remained unremarked.

That procedural structure amplifies the stakes: if the order is invalid, the entire reporting and investigative chain may be operating under unjustified authority.

  1. What Service Members Should Know
  • Not all speech is punishable, but suppression must be tied to real discipline or mission harm, not mere political disagreement.
  • Orders must be lawful. A directive to punish posts about a private citizen must bow to constitutional limits or risk being struck down.
  • Procedural rights matter. If accused, a service member is entitled to notice, to respond, and to challenge whether the order was lawful.
  • Representation is essential. Where broad or vague commands are used to silence dissent, legal counsel must push back, not merely accept “command authority” as absolute.

The interplay between the Hegseth directive, new Navy reporting protocols, and constitutional protection presents a serious danger: that normal political speech by service members could be censored under the guise of discipline.

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we stand ready to defend service members whose voices are suppressed. If you are under threat of investigation or discipline for your online speech, we can challenge overreach and help protect both your career and your rights.

References & Resources

  • Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733 (1974) – Full Text
  • Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348 (1980) – Full Text
  • Uniform Code of Military Justice (10 U.S.C. §§ 888, 892, 933, 934) – UCMJ Articles
  • Manual for Courts-Martial, Part IV, ¶14 – 2024
  • Military Whistleblower Protection Act, 10 U.S.C. § 1034 – Cornell Law School

Army Veteran Wins Medical Retirement After Long Fight for Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

After fighting for over 10 years an army veteran gets justice

After more than a decade of pain, appeals, and repeated denials, a U.S. Army veteran has finally secured justice. On September 12, 2025, following a formal hearing before the Physical Evaluation Board (PEB), the Board recognized what years of medical evidence had already made clear: the veteran’s combat-related injuries rendered him unfit for service and entitled him to a medical retirement.

This decision marks the end of a grueling journey that began with a Humvee accident in Iraq in 2008, where the soldier sustained traumatic brain injury, multiple orthopedic injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder. Rather than receiving the disability evaluation process required by Army regulations, he was left in limbo for years on temporary medical profiles, eventually separated at the end of his service contract in 2011 without the medical retirement he deserved. Despite his documented conditions, which later earned him a 100% permanent and total disability rating from the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Army refused to grant him retirement benefits. For over a decade, he fought through the Army Board for Correction of Military Records and multiple PEB reviews, compiling an extensive record of medical evidence, VA ratings, and legal arguments to prove what should have been recognized years ago, that he was permanently unfit for service. The member even filed suit in District Court, obtaining a remand, which led to his ultimate victory.

“This case demonstrates the perseverance of a soldier who refused to let bureaucracy erase his sacrifice,” said Attorney Dylan Thayer, who represented the veteran. “Our client gave everything for his country, and after years of struggle, the system has finally acknowledged that he was entitled to a medical retirement from the very beginning. It is an honor to stand by him in securing this result.”

The Board’s decision not only restores the veteran’s dignity but also grants him critical benefits, including retirement pay, health care, and backdated entitlements. It sends a broader message that service members should not have to fight for years to obtain the care and recognition that the law already promises them.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents U.S. service members, veterans, and federal employees in military and federal employment law matters, including courts-martial defense, PEB/MEB representation, ABCMR appeals, and security clearance defense. The firm is dedicated to correcting injustices and protecting the rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this release does not create an attorney-client relationship.

 

Army Chaplain Files New ABCMR Petition Following Court Victory

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Army Chaplain Fights for Justice

A Step Forward in Restoring Honor and Correcting Injustice

An Army Chaplain has filed a new application with the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) seeking the removal of a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) from her official record. This filing follows her decisive federal court victory earlier this summer, when the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia found that the Army’s prior refusal to grant relief was “arbitrary and capricious” and remanded her case to the Board

A Career of Service, a Battle for Justice

The Chaplain’s story is one of resilience, faith, and dedication to the soldiers she served. After joining active duty in 2016, she rose to become a Battalion Chaplain in the 101st Airborne Division. Her record included consistent high marks for performance and leadership, along with deep personal commitments to the spiritual and moral well-being of her troops

In 2022, following an administrative dispute with a subordinate soldier, she received a GOMOR. While the Army initially attempted to end her career, a Board of Inquiry later determined she should be retained, recognizing that her conduct did not rise to the level of separation. Even so, the reprimand remained in her permanent record, a stain that hindered her advancement despite subsequent “highly qualified” evaluations and strong endorsements from peers and leaders

In February 2024, the ABCMR itself unanimously recommended removing the reprimand, citing her remorse, strong performance, and the unfair severity of the GOMOR. But in April 2024, that recommendation was overturned by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army. The Chaplain challenged the decision in federal court, and on July 14, 2025, the District Court sided with her, ordering the case returned to the Board for proper reconsideration

Moving the Ball Forward

Now, with her latest ABCMR filing, the Chaplain is seeking to finish what began three years ago: the full restoration of her record and her honor.

“This case is about more than one reprimand,” said her attorney, Dylan Thayer, of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC. “It is about ensuring that a decorated chaplain’s career is not defined by an isolated incident, especially after she has demonstrated unwavering integrity, remorse, and continued excellence in service.”

For the Chaplain, the filing is not simply about personal vindication. It is about correcting the record so that her service is remembered for what it truly is faithful, compassionate, and dedicated to the soldiers she was called to serve.

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 its representation of service members, veterans, and federal employees. The firm has extensive experience in military law, corrections of military records, courts-martial defense, and federal employment litigation.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Viewing this information does not create an attorney-client relationship.

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet — New Analysis From USNI

Posted on by Becky Haugen
Full analysis on DOD Bombing of Valenzuelan Drug TrafficOn 2 September 2025, the U.S. military carried out a precision strike against
a suspected drug-smuggling vessel. (Department of Defense)

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet — New Analysis From USNI


Delve into the intricate intersection of maritime law enforcement and lethal force in “Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet.” Co-authored by Annie Morgan, a Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC, this thoughtful examination draws on Annie’s distinguished background—including appearances before the War Courts at Guantánamo Bay, the Court of Military Commissions Review, and the D.C. Circuit.


Together, the article navigates the thorny legal terrain surrounding drug interdiction by sea, weighing the consequences of policy, precedent, and power. Insightful, timely, indispensable.


Read the full article

Drug Boats: Where Questions of Lethality and Legality Meet
By Annie W. Morgan, Esq. and James Halsell
September 2025
Proceedings
Vol. 151/9/1,471

 

Meet the Power Team: Linda & LeAnn – Our Legal Superheroes

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Super Heroes Linda and LeAnn

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we believe every great law firm has its champions. For us, those champions are none other than Linda Tiller and LeAnn Hendrick—a dynamic duo who bring extraordinary strength, insight, and dedication to our clients. Together, they are the ultimate power team: unstoppable in their pursuit of justice, fearless in the face of challenges, and unwavering in their commitment to excellence.

Linda Tiller: The Strategist

With decades of experience navigating the complexities of federal and military law, Linda has a sharp mind that sees every angle. Known for her meticulous preparation and deep knowledge of procedure, she is the strategist who maps out the battlefield and ensures our clients are always steps ahead. Her superpower? Turning complex legal tangles into clear, winnable strategies.

LeAnn Hendrick: The Advocate

LeAnn brings unmatched energy, compassion, and tenacity to every case. Clients feel her dedication instantly—she listens, she empowers, and she fights as though each client’s cause were her own. Her superpower? Transforming client concerns into powerful advocacy that resonates in the courtroom and beyond.

A Force for Our Clients

When Linda and LeAnn join forces, their talents amplify. They balance precision with passion, intellect with empathy, and strategy with action. Think of them as the Justice League of our firm—protecting the rights of service members, veterans, and federal employees with the courage and determination of true heroes.

At the end of the day, Linda and LeAnn aren’t just part of our team—they are the shield and the sword for our clients. Their combined strength makes us proud to say:

✨ L & L: We Get the Job Done! ✨