Tag: military injustice

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.

Army Veteran Seeks Justice in Medical Retirement Appeal to Correction Board

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A retired Army National Guard noncommissioned officer has petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) to correct what he says was a deeply flawed administrative process that failed to account for his combat-related traumatic brain injury (TBI) and misrepresented the nature of his discharge.

During a 2004 deployment to Iraq, the veteran was knocked unconscious by an improvised explosive device (IED), resulting in a diagnosed TBI and long-term behavioral health and cognitive impairments. Despite a permanent psychiatric profile, decertification from his instructor role, and a commander’s statement recommending retirement due to diminished performance, a Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) later found him “fit for duty.”

Shortly afterward, a Qualitative Retention Board from the Arkansas Army National Guard determined he would not be retained, offering no explanation for its decision. As a result, he was transferred to the Retired Reserve, not formally discharged for medical reasons, nor provided with a retirement disability.

The petition, filed by The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, details how the original MEB and subsequent reviews failed to incorporate key medical records or fully consider the extent of his injuries. It also alleges violations of legal procedures, including failure to disclose advisory opinions to the applicant, as required by federal law.

“This veteran’s case is a textbook example of how bureaucratic gaps and incomplete records can undermine justice for injured service members,” attorney David P. Sheldon confirms. “He was medically profiled, removed from his instructional position, and ultimately sidelined without proper recognition or review of his injuries. We are urging the Board to finally correct the record.”

The ABCMR filing is requesting a new evaluation that includes all relevant Department of Veterans Affairs and military medical records, as well as consideration for medical retirement status retroactive to his transfer from service.

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Federal Judge Finds Army’s Decision Arbitrary, Siding with Plaintiff Represented by Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

WASHINGTON, D.C. — April 3, 2025 — A federal court has sided with a retired Army Reserve officer in her challenge to the Army’s decision to separate her just four months shy of qualifying for military retirement. The case, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, was remanded for further proceedings after U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled that the Army’s reasoning for denying retirement benefits was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The plaintiff, a decorated Lieutenant Colonel with nearly 18 years of honorable service, had sought a modest extension of her service to reach the 20-year retirement threshold. Although her original position was deemed “overstaffed,” she successfully pursued a transfer to an understaffed Civil Affairs unit only to be discharged days before the transfer was finalized.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records unanimously recommended correcting her records to reflect 20 years of service and to award retroactive retirement pay. But in a move the court called confusing and unsupported, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army overruled that recommendation in a single paragraph. The court determined that the Army’s rejection lacked any meaningful explanation and misunderstood key facts in the case.

“This case isn’t just about one soldier, it’s about fairness and accountability in how the Army treats its own,” said Dylan Thayer, the plaintiff’s attorney and partner at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, a D.C.-based firm known for championing military rights. “We’re proud to fight for service members who’ve earned the benefits they were promised.”

The court’s decision sends the matter back to the Army for further review, giving the plaintiff a renewed chance to secure the retirement benefits she should have rightfully received.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is one of the nation’s premier military law firms. With a track record of defending the rights of service members across all branches, the firm handles courts-martial, correction of military records, medical retirement claims, and constitutional rights cases. Visit www.militarydefense.com for more information.

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

Dylan Thayer to Argue Before D.C. Circuit in Major Coleman’s Case Against the U.S. Air Force

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Dylan Thayer to Argue Before D.C. Circuit in Major Coleman’s Case Against the U.S. Air Force

Washington, D.C. – February 20, 2025 – Attorney Dylan Thayer will present oral arguments before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on February 21, 2025, at 9:30 A.M., advocating for Major Thomas G. Coleman (ret.), USAF, in his case against Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall, III.

Major Coleman seeks to rectify a bureaucratic error that has unjustly prevented him from completing his 18-year safe harbor period for military retirement. The Air Force Board for the Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR) acknowledged the error but has failed to fully remedy its consequences. At issue is whether a military correction board, upon identifying an injustice, is required under the law of the D.C. Circuit to fully correct that injustice. Thayer will argue that the answer is unequivocally yes.

In his appeal, Major Coleman is requesting 49 days of constructive service credit to compensate for the eight to 14 months of service time he was wrongfully deprived due to Air Force administrative failures in processing his waiver and transfer request between 2012 and 2013. Despite meeting all requirements to make the year count toward his retirement, the Air Force’s error prevented him from earning the necessary 50 points for a complete year. While the AFBCMR has previously made minor adjustments, it has never fully corrected the injustice, leaving Major Coleman without the retirement protections he rightfully earned.

Thayer will emphasize that when a military correction board acknowledges an error, it is legally obligated to restore the service member to the position they would have been in but for the mistake. This case carries significant implications for service members who rely on correction boards to ensure fairness in military records and retirement eligibility.

Oral arguments will take place at the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit and is listed on the court’s website: www.cadc.uscourts.gov.

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.