Tag: military justice

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.

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.

 

 

Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces Overturns Airman’s Conviction; Restores Honor and Career

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Montana Air

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC announced today a significant victory before the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF), which unanimously reversed the wrongful conviction of an Airman wrongfully convicted of cocaine use.  The unanimous decision found that prosecutors had wrongfully failed to disclose exculpatory evidence under Brady v. Maryland.

This decision likely secures more than three years of back pay and allowances for the Airman and, most importantly, removes his criminal conviction, ensuring he will be honorably discharged.

From Injustice to Vindication

The young Airman faced a devastating court-martial conviction in 2021 at Little Rock Air Force Base after the government withheld and destroyed critical evidence that could have exonerated him. While one of his co-accused was acquitted and another not even charged, the Airman was left with a court martial conviction, “bad paper” discharge, denied appellate review, and forced to rebuild his life working at a Home Depot.

After his initial Article 69 petition was denied, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC took the case pro bono. When the Air Force Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction, Senior Military Defense Attorney Annie Morgan, argued the appeal before the CAAF in Spring of 2025.

This morning, the CAAF issued its unanimous decision, ruling that the lower court erred in dismissing withheld exculpatory evidence, a clear violation of Brady v. Maryland. The Court found the government’s destruction of investigative files and failure to disclose evidence fundamentally undermined the fairness of the trial.

A Voice for All Service Members

“This case reaffirms that every service member, no matter their rank, deserves a fair trial,” said Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “Our client stood alone for years, but today the Court has restored his honor and ensured that justice prevails.”

Case Impact

The Court set aside both the findings and the sentence, underscoring that suppressed evidence of potential innocent ingestion and investigative misconduct should have been disclosed.

This ruling strengthens due-process protections across the armed forces and sends a clear message that the government must honor its constitutional discovery obligations.

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 firm representing military service members, federal employees, and veterans. With a focus on courts-martial defense, medical retirement boards, and appeals before military and federal courts, the firm is committed to safeguarding the rights, careers, and honor of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. No attorney-client relationship is created by this announcement.

 

Two USPHS Officers File Federal Lawsuits Against HHS Secretary and PHS Correction Board Over Promotion Delays

Posted on by Becky Haugen

USPHS Justice

Two United States Public Health Service (USPHS) Lieutenant Commanders have filed separate lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia against Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records (PHS BFC).

Both officers allege that federal officials unlawfully denied their applications to correct their service records after policy changes extended their eligibility for promotion to Commander (O-5) by several years. Each argues that their cases were never reviewed by a legally required “board of civilians,” as mandated by 10 U.S.C. § 1552 and Public Health Service regulations.

According to the complaints, the PHS BFC improperly delegated decisions to its Executive Secretary, board staff, and HHS Office of General Counsel—bypassing impartial civilian review. The lawsuits assert that these actions were “arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law,” in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A).

Both officers, who joined the USPHS with strong service records and early promotions to Lieutenant Commander, claim that the 2024 policy revision to CCI 331.01 unlawfully pushed back their next promotion eligibility to 2029. They seek judicial relief to restore their original 2026 promotion opportunities and recover back pay and allowances.

According to the officer’s attorney Dylan Thayer, “Our clients dedicated themselves to the mission of the Public Health Service, stepping forward in times of crisis and fulfilling their duty with distinction. Yet when they sought fair review of their records, they were denied the very protections Congress guaranteed through impartial civilian oversight. These lawsuits are not just about promotions, they are about accountability, fairness, and ensuring that those who serve our nation receive the justice they are entitled to under the law.”

The lawsuits, filed by the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, highlight broader concerns about fairness, oversight, and due process in military and uniformed service correction boards, which by statute must provide impartial civilian review.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., represents service members, veterans, and federal employees worldwide in military justice, administrative law, corrections of records, and federal employment disputes. The firm is recognized nationally for defending the rights of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every case is unique, and prior results do not guarantee future outcomes.

Rights of Transgender Service Members Denied Early Retirement Benefits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Air Force Denies Transgender Service Members Early Retirement: Legal Implications and Rights

Rainbow pride flag

On August 4, 2025, the U.S. Air Force issued a decision to rescind approvals for early retirement benefits under Temporary Early Retirement Authority (TERA) for transgender service members who had already been granted the opportunity to retire with full benefits. These service members, many of whom had served nearly 20 years, had planned their retirements based on the assurances provided by previous approvals. However, the Air Force’s recent decision to withdraw these approvals, along with the directive to either voluntarily separate or face involuntary discharge without retirement benefits, has left these individuals facing uncertain futures.

This decision comes amid a contentious political environment surrounding transgender rights in the military. Under the Biden administration, the military had taken steps to reverse the transgender ban implemented by the Trump administration, allowing transgender service members to serve openly. However, this decision by the Air Force to rescind the retirement benefits seems to represent a stark reversal, despite the Biden administration’s earlier efforts to support the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals in the armed forces.

The legal questions surrounding this issue are significant. Service members who had relied on the government’s initial promise of early retirement with benefits could argue that this action constitutes a breach of contract. They may also invoke the legal principle of promissory estoppel, which protects individuals from harm when they have relied on a promise to their detriment. The rescission of these benefits, after individuals had already planned their retirements based on the government’s assurances, suggests a legal vulnerability for the government, as they may be required to honor the commitments made to these service members.

Furthermore, the denial of retirement benefits specifically to transgender service members raises concerns under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The government has a responsibility not to discriminate based on gender identity unless it can show a compelling governmental interest. In this case, the rescission of benefits, particularly when other military personnel are allowed such benefits, may be seen as discriminatory. Additionally, the abrupt denial of earned retirement benefits could also be challenged as a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which protects against the arbitrary deprivation of property without due process of law.

This situation is further complicated by the existence of executive orders and administrative policies. The Biden administration had previously issued an executive order reversing the transgender military ban in January 2021, ensuring that transgender individuals could serve openly. However, the decision by the Air Force to rescind these benefits suggests a disregard for both the current administration’s policies and the legal protections that were established to ensure equal treatment for transgender service members.

For those affected, there are several potential legal remedies. One option is to pursue administrative appeals within the Department of Defense, challenging the rescission of retirement benefits. Another option is seeking judicial review in federal court to challenge the decision on constitutional and administrative law grounds. In some instances, affected service members may even consider a class action lawsuit, particularly if the number of those affected is significant, as a way to address the systemic nature of the policy.

In conclusion, the rescission of early retirement benefits for transgender service members raises important legal questions. The actions of the U.S. Air Force seem to directly contradict the legal precedents and executive orders established in favor of transgender rights. As a result, affected service members have viable legal options to challenge this decision. They may seek redress through administrative appeals, judicial review, or class action litigation, depending on the specifics of their case.

References:

  • Reuters, “U.S. Air Force Denies Early Retirement to Group of Transgender Service Members” Link
  • Newsweek, “Air Force Denies Transgender Troops Early Retirement Pay” Link
  • The Hill, “Air Force Denies Transgender Troops Retirement” Link

Disclaimer:
This article does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance or concerns, it is recommended to consult an attorney specializing in military law or constitutional rights.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC:
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is dedicated to providing exceptional legal representation to military service members and federal employees facing legal challenges. Specializing in military justice, veterans’ rights, and federal employment law, we are committed to advocating for the rights and well-being of our clients. For more information, please visit our website at www.militarydefense.com.

A Cadet’s Leadership, Not Misconduct, Should Define His Future

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A promising Air Force Academy cadet, just steps away from graduating and becoming a commissioned officer, now faces a 10-month probation that could unfairly derail his military career. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, has formally petitioned the Superintendent of the U.S. Air Force Academy to reduce the punishment, arguing the penalty is unjust and disproportionate.

The cadet, a senior and leader on the Air Force Academy’s varsity soccer team, did not commit a crime or violate Air Force regulations. He was not accused of physical misconduct, nor did he participate in the behavior that prompted a larger investigation into team traditions. Instead, his only alleged offense was being present during horseplay that was longstanding, widely accepted, and even condoned by coaches and senior cadets.

Despite this, he has been grouped with others who faced far more serious allegations, including abusive conduct, indecent acts and is now facing the same punishment.

“This cadet followed the example set by coaches, upperclassmen, and the very culture the Academy allowed to persist for years,” said Attorney David P. Sheldon. “To hold him equally accountable for something he didn’t do and wasn’t expected to report under military law is not only unfair, it sends a dangerous message to future leaders.”

Notably, multiple witnesses, including the cadet allegedly impacted by the incident, attested that no misconduct occurred and that the environment allowed cadets to speak up if they were uncomfortable. When interviewed, one of his teammates said “the cadet was always respectful, he made sure I was okay. I trust him and would serve under him without hesitation.”

If the 10-month probation stands, this cadet will lose thousands in military pay, miss his scheduled pilot training, and fall behind in career advancement, all despite his high performance, a clean record, and full cooperation with investigators.

The legal brief highlights inconsistencies in past disciplinary actions at the Academy, citing other cadets who committed serious misconduct, yet were allowed to graduate and commission. The firm’s request calls on the Air Force Academy to recognize that this young man’s actions do not warrant a punishment that could define his career forever.

 

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a nationally recognized firm based in Washington, D.C., representing military service members and federal employees across the globe. With decades of experience in military justice and administrative law, the firm advocates for the rights of those who serve—and ensures due process is not just a promise, but a guarantee.

 

Legal Disclaimer
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case.

“Justice For A Chaplain”: Federal Court Sides With Army Officer

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A U.S. Army captain and chaplain has won an important legal victory in federal court after a years-long effort to clear her record of an unjust reprimand. The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ruled that the Army’s decision to reject a military review board’s recommendation to remove the reprimand was “arbitrary and capricious,” sending the matter back to the Secretary of the Army for reconsideration.

The officer, a decorated chaplain with nearly a decade of service, was stationed at the prestigious 101st Airborne Division when a professional conflict led to a series of investigations. Though she was never formally relieved of duty and was recommended for retention by a Board of Inquiry, a General Officer Memorandum of Reprimand (GOMOR) remained in her permanent file, potentially jeopardizing her career, future promotions, and retirement benefits.

The Army’s own Board for Correction of Military Records agreed with the officer’s appeal and voted to have the reprimand removed. But in April 2024, a Deputy Assistant Secretary overruled that decision with a brief one-paragraph denial, offering no substantial explanation.

In a strongly worded opinion issued July 14, 2025, Judge Sparkle L. Sooknanan criticized the Army’s handling of the case, stating the decision lacked adequate reasoning and failed to consider the Board’s findings. The court has now ordered the Army to revisit the matter and provide a lawful, properly reasoned decision.

“This ruling doesn’t just impact one officer, it sends a message that accountability and fairness still matter, even in military bureaucracy,” said Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represents the officer. “It’s a step toward restoring a distinguished career that was nearly derailed by an unexplained administrative action.”

The officer has served honorably as a chaplain supporting the emotional and spiritual well-being of soldiers under pressure. Her reinstatement into good standing would preserve her opportunity for continued service and eventual military retirement.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon represents military service members and federal employees across the globe in matters involving military justice, adverse actions, security clearances, medical retirement, and records corrections. The firm is nationally known for its commitment to justice, integrity, and results.

Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Every legal situation is unique. If you are facing an issue involving a military reprimand or adverse personnel action, contact a qualified attorney for legal counsel.

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.

Decorated Public Health Service Officer Fights Unjust Forced Retirement: What’s at Stake in Her Appeal

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer in the U.S. Public Health Service Commissioned Corps has filed a formal appeal to halt what her legal counsel describes as a premature and procedurally flawed forced retirement that jeopardizes her pension, professional standing, and years of public service. The appeal was filed by her attorney, Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC.

The officer, a Commander with over 20 years of honorable and decorated service, was notified last month that she would be involuntarily retired effective August 1, 2025. The decision followed a sudden Return to Service order and placement in a non-duty pay status without written documentation or the due process outlined in Public Health Service policy. Despite these irregularities, and her active efforts to secure a new assignment, an Involuntary Retirement Board (IRB) was convened and recommended her retirement.

Her legal team asserts that the IRB’s action is not only premature, but also denies the officer the opportunity to complete her service on her own terms—potentially costing her:

  • Additional creditable time in service toward retirement,
  • A higher annuity under the High-36 pension calculation,
  • Future eligibility for promotion to O-6 (Captain),
  • And the ability to preserve her professional record and legacy.

“This is more than a personnel dispute, it’s a matter of justice, fairness, and a decorated officer’s right to continue serving,” said attorney Annie Morgan. “She secured a new federal assignment before her scheduled return date. There’s no reason to push her out early. The loss of rank, retirement earnings, and professional dignity are too great a price for a flawed administrative process.”

The Commander, who has received Presidential Unit Commendations, served in national leadership roles, and was hand-selected to lead critical emergency response teams, has since accepted a position with the Bureau of Prisons in Victorville, California. However, with just weeks to go before her return, her leadership informed her that the retirement process was “already underway” and refused to facilitate her reassignment.

Her appeal argues for reinstatement so that she may continue her service and retire with the full benefits, respect, and recognition she has earned.

About The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a premier military and federal employment law firm based in Washington, D.C., with a legacy of defending the rights and careers of service members and federal officers across the nation. The firm provides trusted representation in administrative appeals, courts-martial, involuntary separations, and national security matters.

 

Disclaimer

This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past performance does not guarantee future results. Individuals seeking legal counsel should contact an attorney for specific guidance regarding their case.