Tag: military justice

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.

Public Health Service Physician’s Journey from Ebola Response to Reprimand Spurs Fight for Justice

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated physician in the United States Public Health Service (USPHS) is seeking justice after being reprimanded and denied promotion due to administrative readiness lapses that occurred while he was serving in a civilian residency during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Commissioned since 2012, the officer began his career as a pharmacist before attending medical school at the Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (USUHS). His service includes deployment to Liberia during the West African Ebola outbreak, where he contributed to the nation’s public health mission on the front lines of a global crisis. After graduating from medical school in 2020, he completed a rigorous three-year Family Medicine residency, all while the world faced the strain of a pandemic.

Despite his unwavering commitment, 2023 brought a blow: the Commissioned Corps issued a Letter of Reprimand (LOR) citing failure to maintain readiness requirements. The reprimand was based on administrative errors, missed documentation uploads, not actual medical or physical shortcomings. At the time, the officer was in a non-deployable, civilian training program, under the belief that readiness standards did not apply during residency.

“That period was one of the most intense and formative chapters of my life,” said the physician. “I was balancing pandemic care, 80-hour weeks, and professional growth, believing I was doing everything expected of me to become a better provider for underserved communities.”

Now a board-certified Family Medicine doctor working with the Indian Health Service, he faces long-term career consequences. Because of the reprimand, he was removed from promotion eligibility through 2027 and threatened with involuntary separation unless he resigned. Resignation would trigger a penalty under his Commissioned Service Obligation, costing him an estimated 1 million dollars.

His request for correction, now under review by the Board for Correction of USPHS Records, seeks to remove the reprimand, restore promotion eligibility, and grant back pay. The argument is clear: USPHS policy does not apply readiness standards to officers in training, and the reprimand represents both a legal error and a deep injustice.

Represented by Senior Military Attorney Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the physician has laid out a strong case for administrative relief, supported by internal correspondence, legal precedent, and a consistent record of exemplary service.

“This isn’t about evading responsibility, it’s about recognizing when rules are misapplied and good service members are unfairly penalized,” said the officer. “I’m still here, still serving, and still committed. I just want the chance to do so without this shadow over my record.”

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 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.

Navy Officer’s Federal Appeal Challenges Arbitrary Promotion Denial and Career-Saving Records Dispute

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Plaintiff Seeks Judicial Review After Navy’s Unjust Delay and Career Impact

A significant appeal has been filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit challenging the Navy’s prolonged delay and subsequent denial of a career-critical promotion, which the plaintiff argues occurred in direct violation of federal statute. Represented by Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the plaintiff, a decorated Navy Lieutenant, asserts that the Navy’s Board for Correction of Naval Records acted arbitrarily and capriciously by ignoring mandatory promotion timelines and mischaracterizing his service record.

At the heart of the case is the Navy’s failure to promote the plaintiff within the statutory deadline prescribed by 10 U.S.C. § 624(d)(5), which limits appointment delays to 18 months. The plaintiff’s promotion was delayed nearly 21 months, a violation the Navy itself acknowledged but refused to remedy. Despite exemplary service and a family legacy of military dedication, the plaintiff’s promotion was denied, and he was subjected to an adverse personnel action stemming from a minor 2019 incident aboard the USS Howard, an incident which his command later agreed did not warrant separation from service. The District Court acknowledged the Navy’s statutory breach but held that no enforceable duty existed to promote the plaintiff. The appeal argues this interpretation defies both congressional intent and longstanding precedent affirming the obligation of correction boards to rectify such injustices.

“The Navy delayed this officer’s rightful promotion well beyond what Congress allows,” said Dylan Thayer, lead counsel. “The law is clear: such delays may not exceed 18 months, and when they do, the promotion should occurs by operation of law. Our client’s rights, and his career, have been unjustly compromised.”

The lawsuit also challenges the Navy’s decision to uphold a detachment for cause action, which alleged “gross negligence” despite the plaintiff maintaining a record of exceeding performance standards for much of his career, including multiple commendations.

“This case is not just about one officer’s career,” Thayer added. “It’s about ensuring that service members can rely on the laws Congress enacts to protect them from arbitrary administrative overreach.”

The appeal seeks to overturn the District Court’s ruling and compel the Navy to correct the plaintiff’s record and recognize his promotion as having occurred by operation of law.

 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 litigation firm representing service members and federal employees nationwide. The firm advocates in matters of military justice, administrative law, correction of records, security clearance defense, and federal employment disputes.

DISCLAIMER:

The information contained in this release is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed by this communication.

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.

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon Files Key Legal Motion in Military Defense Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is pleased to share an important legal update regarding a recent filing in a military defense case. Led by attorney Dylan Thayer, our firm has submitted a critical motion in the United States Court of Appeal for the District of Columbia Circuit on behalf of a dedicated service member in the United States Army. This motion seeks to overturn a wrongful conviction that threatens both the career and reputation of a decorated officer, underscoring our firm’s unwavering commitment to ensuring justice for those who serve in the armed forces.

Legal Strategy and Advocacy

The motion, filed in a high-stakes military law matter, presents compelling arguments that challenge procedural inconsistencies, evidentiary issues, and violations of due process that have unfairly impacted our client, a Senior Non-Commissioned Officer (NCO) with over 15 years of honorable service. This case involves allegations that were based on flawed investigative procedures, raising significant concerns about the fairness of the military justice process.

Attorney Dylan Thayer, an experienced advocate in military defense law, crafted a well-researched and forceful legal argument addressing key issues related to military regulations and procedural fairness. The motion highlights due process violations and improper handling of exculpatory evidence that could have significantly altered the outcome of the original proceedings.

“This filing is a testament to our firm’s dedication to fighting for service members’ rights,” said Thayer. “The stakes in this case are high—our client’s career, military benefits, and lifelong reputation are on the line. We take immense pride in providing strong, strategic legal representation to ensure that justice is upheld.”

Commitment to Military Defense

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon has built a reputation as a leading firm in military law, representing service members across all branches of the military. Based in Washington, DC, our team is known for its expertise in courts-martial appeals, discharge upgrades, security clearance matters, and military administrative proceedings. Our attorneys bring decades of experience to the table, providing clients with top-tier legal advocacy in complex military cases.

This latest filing reflects our ongoing commitment to defending those who have dedicated their lives to serving our country. We will continue to monitor this case closely and provide updates as developments unfold.

For more information about our legal services or to schedule a consultation, visit militarydefense.com or contact our office directly 202-546-9575.

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.

 

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.

 

Legal Action on Behalf of Retired USPHS Member Challenging Injustice in Federal Public Health Service Record Correction Case

Posted on by Becky Haugen

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC Files Legal Action Challenging Injustice in Public Health Service Record Correction Case

Washington, D.C. – February 28, 2025 – The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, a premier law firm specializing in military and federal employment law, has filed a lawsuit on behalf of a distinguished former officer of the United States Public Health Service (PHS) Commissioned Corps. The complaint, filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, challenges a federal agency’s refusal to grant relief despite findings of injustice by an official military correction board.

Represented by Dylan Thayer, a federal litigator, the plaintiff—an officer with the rank of Commander—seeks to overturn a decision by the Program Support Center Director that disregarded evidence of wrongful termination and procedural violations. The lawsuit asserts that the officer was unfairly separated from service despite a military records board’s acknowledgment that her supervisors failed to address critical signs of an underlying medical condition.

“This case exemplifies a fundamental failure to ensure justice for those who have dedicated their careers to public service,” said attorney Dylan Thayer. “Despite a finding of injustice by the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records, the final decision-maker arbitrarily denied relief, disregarding both the evidence and the governing legal standards.”

The lawsuit contends that the agency’s decision violated federal law, failed to correct a clear injustice, and deprived the officer of due process rights under the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The plaintiff is seeking a remand of the case to the Board for a lawful review that adheres to applicable statutes and regulations.

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 specializing in military law, federal employment disputes, security clearance matters, and appellate litigation. With a track record of successfully advocating for service members, veterans, and federal employees, the firm remains committed to securing justice for those who serve our nation.

For more information, please visit www.militarydefense.com or contact the firm at:

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M Street, S.E., Suite 600
Washington, DC 20003
Phone: (202) 546-9575
Fax: (202) 546-0135

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.

Department of Defense Policy on Transgender Service Members

Posted on by Becky Haugen

 Department of Defense Policy on Transgender Service Members

The recently issued Department of Defense (DoD) memorandum dated February 26, 2025, which effectively reverses prior policies allowing transgender individuals to serve openly in the military, raises significant legal and constitutional concerns. The stated rationale for this new policy—asserting that a history of gender dysphoria or related medical treatments is incompatible with military service—appears to be a broad and categorical exclusion rather than an individualized assessment of fitness for duty.

As legal advocates for military service members, veterans, and those facing adverse administrative actions, the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon strongly opposes policies that impose blanket bans on service members based on characteristics unrelated to individual merit, performance, and capability. The U.S. District Court has previously expressed skepticism toward similar policies, noting that they amount to “total discrimination,” rather than a justifiable regulation tied to military readiness or operational effectiveness.

The Constitution, particularly the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, prohibits the government from engaging in arbitrary discrimination. A policy that broadly excludes individuals with gender dysphoria from service—without consideration of their actual abilities, medical history, or demonstrated service performance—risks violating fundamental constitutional protections. Federal courts have previously struck down similar categorical exclusions for lacking a sufficient rational basis, particularly when they serve primarily to target a politically vulnerable group rather than advancing legitimate governmental interests.

Furthermore, the policy’s immediate effect on transgender service members raises serious concerns about due process and the fairness of administrative separations. Service members who were previously allowed to serve openly and receive necessary medical care now face potential involuntary discharge or denial of medical treatment, despite their proven dedication and fitness for service. These actions could also conflict with existing military regulations that require individualized medical assessments and due process protections for those facing administrative separation.

In practical terms, this policy threatens to undermine military readiness rather than enhance it. The DoD has invested significant resources in training and integrating transgender service members under prior policies. Removing qualified individuals from service without cause unrelated to performance or conduct disregards the military’s stated mission of maintaining a highly capable and diverse fighting force.

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon stands ready to challenge this policy through all available legal avenues, advocating for service members who are unjustly targeted under its provisions. We urge Congress, the courts, and military leadership to recognize that discrimination—under any pretext—undermines both national security and the core principles of fairness and equality that define our armed forces.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is a premier military law firm based in Washington, D.C., dedicated to defending the rights of service members, veterans, and federal employees. With extensive experience in military administrative and criminal defense, our firm represents clients in courts-martial, discharge upgrades, security clearance cases, and other military-related legal matters. We are committed to upholding justice and ensuring fair treatment for those who serve our nation.

To consult with the experienced Washington, DC based Military Attorneys at the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC contact our office at (202) 546-9575 or visit www.militarydefense.com, or request a consultation.

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.

Annie Morgan to Present Oral Argument Before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Annie Morgan to Present Oral Argument Before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces in SrA Bryce Roan’s Case

Washington, D.C. – On Wednesday, February 26, 2025 Senior Trial and Appellate Attorney Annie Morgan of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, will present oral argument before the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) in the case of Senior Airman (SrA) Bryce Roan. The argument will focus on the government’s failure to disclose exculpatory evidence, violating SrA Roan’s constitutional and statutory rights to a fair trial under Brady v. Maryland and Rule for Courts-Martial 701.

SrA Roan was convicted of wrongful use of cocaine following a positive urinalysis during a unit-wide drug sweep. However, critical evidence indicating the possibility of a false positive due to a pre-workout supplement was withheld by military prosecutors. This evidence was later disclosed in a separate but related court-martial, where Roan’s roommate was acquitted of the same offense. Despite clear indications of gross negligence by investigators—including the destruction of key investigative records—the government proceeded with Roan’s prosecution without full disclosure of exculpatory evidence.

CAAF granted review on the following issues:

  1. Whether the lower court erred in finding that the withheld evidence was immaterial, thereby violating the principles established in Brady v. Maryland.
  2. Whether the government’s failure to disclose evidence violated SrA Roan’s rights under Rule for Courts-Martial 701.

“The failure to disclose exculpatory evidence is an affront to every service member’s right to a fair trial,” said Annie Morgan, who will argue the case on behalf of SrA Roan. “This case is about more than one Airman—it is about ensuring integrity in military justice. We will not stop fighting until justice prevails.”

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, a nationally recognized military law firm based in Washington, D.C., continues to champion the rights of service members in complex court-martial cases and appeals.

For more information, please contact:

Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
100 M St SE, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20003
www.militarydefense.com

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.