Tag: military law

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Passport

Passports, Power, and Identity: The Supreme Court’s Latest Blow to Transgender Rights:

Overview:

On November 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted a stay, thus allowing the Department of State to continue to enforce a policy requiring all new U.S. passports to list the sex assigned at birth rather than a gender‐identity marker or an “X” designation.

The policy reversed 33 years of previous practice which allowed applicants to select gender markers consistent with their identity.

A lower federal court had preliminarily enjoined the new policy, finding potential irreparable harm to transgender, nonbinary, and intersex individuals (a position supported by the three Justices who dissented from the stay decision); the Supreme Court’s stay suspends that injunction while the underlying litigation continues.

In short: the Court’s action does not dispose of the merits, but it immediately permits the government’s policy to be enforced while appeals proceed—raising significant legal and practical implications for identity recognition and travel. Notably, the Court’s opinion also indicated its preliminary view that the Government is  likely to succeed in the case.

Effect on Military Service Members and Federal Employees

From a legal vantage point, this opinion is about much more than a technical change in the content of travel documents, it constitutes a meaningful shift in how identity, service, and federal recognition intersect for service members and federal employees who are transgender or nonbinary.

At its core, the policy change presents three principal categories of legal concern: (1) mobility and assignment risk; (2) documentary alignment and clearance/fitness burdens; and (3) the doctrinal posture of transgender rights under equal protection and administrative law.

Mobility and Assignment Risk

For a service member or federal employee, passports are not mere travel credentials, they can be mission-essential equipment. When a member’s official identity document reflects a gender marker inconsistent with their lived identity, the risk is operational: at foreign borders, in allied nation environments, on joint exercises, and during global deployments. A passport listing only the sex assigned at birth may immediately out a transgender or nonbinary individual, raising questions of security, host-nation reception, and force protection. The Court’s stay thus has the practical effect of making some assignments riskier for those individuals, even if their other credentials (military ID, DEERS, CAC, etc.) align with their gender identity.

Documentary Alignment and Federal Service Burden

The military and federal employment systems rely on coherence and consistency among personnel records, security clearances, travel documents, medical records, and identity verification systems. When a passport marker diverges from other records, it introduces friction: clearance adjudicators may wonder whether mismatched documents signal concealment or instability. Commanders may hesitate to send qualified individuals into roles where identity mismatches could degrade trust. Transgender and nonbinary persons, therefore, face a unique documentary burden: while their performance may meet standards, their identity alignment becomes a persistent administrative stressor.

Additionally, the policy sends a signal: even if the individual has changed their name, corrected records, and deployed without incident, the federal government now says that their passport will reflect their birth-sex, not their gender identity. That structural disjunction, between recognition in uniform and misrecognition in travel documents, raises novel career and administrative risks.

Doctrinal Posture: Equal Protection & Administrative Law

Legally, Trump v. Orr is important for how it frames transgender/nonbinary rights. In the district-court litigation underlying the stay (Orr v. Trump), the plaintiffs challenged the policy under the Fifth Amendment’s Equal Protection component, the Due Process right to travel, and the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) for arbitrary and capricious agency action. The government argued that listing sex at birth is a factual administrative classification and thus subject only to rational-basis review. The Supreme Court’s decision to allow the stay suggests that at least on the emergency docket it viewed the government’s interest in uniformity of government issuance and foreign-affairs deference as meriting temporary relief.

For military and federal employees, the doctrinal import is this: if the Court treats this kind of identity regulation as subject only to rational-basis review, then future policies impacting transgender and nonbinary individuals, whether in fitness standards, deployment eligibility, health care access, or records changes, may face a less rigorous judicial review threshold. The bureaucratic authority to define which identities count may grow larger.

Specific Implications for Service Members and Federal Employees

  • Service members with deployments, TDYs, or exchange billets abroad may now face additional barriers if their passport mis-identifies them. Commands may delay or cancel assignments citing “logistical or diplomatic risk.”
  • Noncommissioned and commissioned personnel seeking security clearances could face increased scrutiny if their records show inconsistencies between their identity and travel documentation—creating an unspoken impediment to advancement.
  • Veterans transitioning to federal civilian employment or contractor roles may see their mobility and international travel constrained, and their identity-related documentation mismatches may reduce eligibility for roles that require international travel or clearance.
  • The ruling signals to federal agencies that policies prerequisite to identity recognition (e.g., gender marker changes, name changes, affirming health care) may be vulnerable to future roll-backs or reinterpretations, complicating long-term planning for transgender and nonbinary federal employees.

Conclusion

While the stay in Trump v. Orr is temporary and the litigation remains ongoing, the immediate outcome is clear: the federal government will now issue passports that ignore gender identity in favor of sex assigned at birth. For transgender and nonbinary individuals in uniform or federal service, this decision shifts mobility from a right to a potential vulnerability, imposes administrative burdens, and signals that identity recognition by the state can be unilaterally narrowed. From a policy-defense standpoint, any advocacy for trans and nonbinary service members must now treat passports and travel documents as frontline rights, not peripheral concerns.

Key Legal Resources & References

  • Supreme Court Trump Passport Gender Ruling Washington Post
  • Orr v. Trump, Case No. 1:25-cv-10313 (D. Mass.). Case Law
  • Trump v. Orr, Application 25A319, Supreme Court. Supreme Court
  • Executive Order 14168, “Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government.” Whitehouse.gov
  • ACLU Press Release, “Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Enforce Discriminatory Passport Policy.” American Civil Liberties Union
  • Lambda Legal, “Identity Document Guidance for Transgender, Nonbinary, Gender-Nonconforming + Intersex People.” Lambda Legal

When the System Reboots But Justice Doesn’t

Posted on by Becky Haugen

MSPB

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Rainbow pride flag

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

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

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

Constitutional and Legal Implications

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

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

Impact on the Broader LGBTQ+ Workforce

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

Government Shutdown Complications

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

Legal Remedies and Next Steps

Affected service members and federal employees may pursue several avenues:

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

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

Recent News Articles and Resources

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

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

 

 

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.

Privacy and Power: National Guard Protections Under the Privacy Act Remain Vital in Today’s Environment

Posted on by Becky Haugen
Federalizing the Reserves
Photo By Tech. Sgt. Andrew Enriquez –
This image was released by the United States National Guard with the ID 250815-Z-EZ983-1008

In 2009, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals confronted a seemingly technical, but critically important question: Does the Privacy Act protect members of federally recognized National Guard units when they are not on active federal duty?

The case, In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251 (D.C. Cir. 2009), involved a Vermont Army National Guard member whose sensitive personal information was improperly disclosed. Represented by David P. Sheldon, the appellant challenged the government’s attempt to carve out the National Guard from the Privacy Act’s protections whenever guardsmen were not on federal activation orders.

The government argued that state Guard units, when not federalized, were “state entities” beyond the Privacy Act. The district court agreed and dismissed the case. On appeal, however, the D.C. Circuit reversed, holding that the statutory structure of Title 10 and the Privacy Act compelled the opposite conclusion: a National Guard unit is always part of the Army National Guard of the United States (ARNGUS), which in turn is a reserve component of the Department of the Army, a “military department” expressly covered by the Privacy Act.

Judge Kavanaugh’s Concurrence

The panel opinion was authored by Judge David Tatel, with a separate concurring opinion by Judge Brett Kavanaugh. Judge Kavanaugh agreed with the outcome but emphasized a streamlined statutory approach. He underscored that the Department of the Army is plainly an “agency” under the Privacy Act and that federally recognized Guard units, by definition, fall under the Army’s umbrella. His concurrence dismissed attempts to overcomplicate the statutory analysis, warning that Congress had already spoken clearly: Guard units federally recognized under Title 10 remain tied to the Army’s command structure and thus remain subject to federal obligations under the Privacy Act.

David P. Sheldon’s Argument

In oral and written arguments, David P. Sheldon advanced the principle that privacy protections must travel with the soldier, regardless of whether a Guard unit is under state or federal command. “The dignity of service members requires no less than full protection of their private information, whether they are standing guard at home or serving abroad,” Sheldon argued in the case.

That position carried the day, shaping precedent for thousands of Guard members across the nation.

Why It Matters Today

The reasoning in In re Sealed Case resonates even more strongly in the present environment:

  1. Expanded Federal Utilization of the Guard.  Guard units are increasingly activated for missions that blur federal and state roles—border enforcement, pandemic response, natural disaster relief, and civil unrest. Their entwinement with federal operations makes the distinction between “state” and “federal” duty even less meaningful. Kavanaugh’s statutory reading—that federally recognized units are always part of ARNGUS—fits today’s operational realities.
  2. Growing Data Vulnerabilities.  With AI systems, electronic health records, and broad interagency data sharing, the risk of wrongful disclosure or algorithmic error in Guard members’ personal information has grown exponentially. The Privacy Act, designed to check exactly these risks, must remain robust.
  3. Current Administration’s Military Policies.  Recent administrations, including the current one, have leaned heavily on Guard forces for politically sensitive missions. Attempts to sidestep federal accountability by pointing to “state status” would threaten Guard members’ rights at precisely the moment they need federal protection most.

Conclusion

The D.C. Circuit’s 2009 decision, argued by David P. Sheldon and joined in judgment by Judge Brett Kavanaugh remains good law. Its logic has only gained strength. The Privacy Act applies to the National Guard not as a matter of policy preference, but because Congress has mandated it. In an age of unprecedented reliance on the Guard and unprecedented risks to personal data, this precedent serves as a vital safeguard for those who serve.

References & Resources

  • In re Sealed Case, No. 07-5251, 551 F.3d 1047 (D.C. Cir. 2009). govinfo.gov 
  • Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990).  Justia USSC
  • Privacy Act of 1974, 5 U.S.C. § 552a. Justice.gov
  • Title 10, U.S. Code §§ 101(a)(6), 10101, 10105, 10106, 10107. govinfo.gov
  • Army Regulation 340-21, The Army Privacy Program. Download
  • Defense Privacy Board, Applicability of the Privacy Act to National Guard Records (1992). PCLT

Disclaimer

This publication is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Service members and federal employees facing Privacy Act or related issues should consult with qualified legal counsel regarding their specific circumstances.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC

Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC is a nationally recognized firm dedicated to defending the rights of service members, federal employees, and veterans. From courts-martial to federal employment disputes, medical retirement cases, and Privacy Act litigation, our attorneys combine deep knowledge of military and federal law with an unwavering commitment to justice.

Federal Employee Protections Weaken as Federal Workers Lose Bargaining Rights

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Courts Allow for Cancelling Collective Bargaining

A recent court decision has made it harder for federal employees to protect their jobs and working conditions.

On August 1, 2025, a federal appeals court said that 21 federal agencies can cancel union contracts and take away employee bargaining rights. These rights helped workers speak up about unfair treatment, file complaints, and work with their agencies to solve problems. Now, those protections are at risk—especially for employees working in national security–related jobs like Defense, State, Treasury, and HHS.

This ruling comes at a time when many federal employees are already facing massive layoffs (called RIFs) and sudden changes in leadership. Some agencies have removed top officials, while others are quietly planning job cuts. This has made federal jobs more uncertain than ever.

What Did the Court Say?

The court allowed agencies to cancel collective bargaining agreements, which are like contracts between workers and their employers. These agreements often include:

  • Protections against unfair firings
  • Ways to challenge poor treatment
  • Rules about promotions and job assignments

Now, agencies can remove these protections without negotiating with unions.

Why It Matters

This ruling has real consequences:

  • You might not be able to challenge unfair treatment as easily.
  • Agencies can change your job, move you, or even fire you—without union help.
  • If you’ve been affected by a RIF, your chances to fight back could be more limited.

Even if you’re a good worker, your agency may cut your position or change your role without much notice. And with union protections weakened, you may have fewer tools to protect your rights.

What’s Being Done?

The Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC in Washington, D.C., will speak at a national Federal Employment Law Town Hall on August 19. The event is hosted by the Military Law Practitioners Network (MLPN) and will offer legal insight for federal workers like you. David P Sheldon and Annie Morgan will be panelists at the Virtual Town Hall.

David P. Sheldon
As the founder of a nationally recognized federal and military law firm based in Washington, D.C., Mr. Sheldon has decades of experience representing service members and federal employees in complex legal forums, including MSPB, federal courts, and Boards for Correction of Military Records. He is a trusted advocate in RIF appeals, wrongful discharge, and employment record correction.

Annie Morgan
A Senior Military Attorney at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, Annie Morgan brings extensive litigation experience on behalf of service members and federal workers. Her work includes advocating before military boards and defending clients facing termination, discharge review, and misconduct allegations.

The Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC has spent decades defending federal employees, veterans, and service members. The firm helps workers:

  • Challenge unfair RIFs
  • Appeal terminations
  • Clear their records
  • Fight for reinstatement and back pay

The upcoming panel will explain what your rights are, what the courts are doing, and how you can still protect yourself—even as the law changes.

What You Can Do Now

  • Know your rights – Even with union limits, laws like Title 5 and the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) still offer protections.
  • Keep good records – Save emails, memos, and anything related to your job, duties, or changes in your position.
  • Talk to a lawyer – Especially if you were affected by a RIF or believe you were unfairly targeted.

Join the Free Town Hall Event

Monday, August 19, 2025
2:00 PM EST
Zoom (Virtual Event) Link
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/2604808511?pwd=R3lyWnFHUjc2eW5vR01RUXBUK2F0UT09&omn=81483855549

Meeting ID: 260 480 8511
Passcode: 1Rehvs

Hosted by the Military Law Practitioners Network (MLPN)
Submit your questions in advance!

 

About the Law Offices of David P Sheldon, PLLC

The firm is based in Washington, D.C. T fights for service members and federal workers in all forums—MSPB, federal courts, military boards, and more. If your job is on the line, he and his team know how to defend it.

Disclaimer: This opinion is for informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship. For legal advice specific to your case, speak with an attorney.

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 Promising Career Delayed: PHS Officer Seeks Correction After Mischaracterized Interservice Transfer

Posted on by Becky Haugen

A decorated officer in the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) Commissioned Corps is seeking a correction to her military records after discovering that years of prior service in the U.S. Army have been excluded from her promotion timeline due to a mischaracterized transfer process. Represented by Attorney Dylan Thayer of the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, the officer has filed a formal application to the Board for Correction of PHS Commissioned Corps Records.

This case centers around a troubling bureaucratic failure: despite receiving multiple assurances from PHS officials that her five years of active-duty Army service would be recognized under an interservice transfer, the officer was later told that her commissioning into the PHS was processed as a direct appointment, rendering her previous rank and time in service irrelevant for promotion eligibility.

“When an officer makes career-defining decisions based on guidance from the very institution that recruits them, the burden to correct misinformation should not fall on the officer alone,” said Attorney Thayer. “We are asking for the recognition of service she has already rendered with distinction.”

The officer had served honorably as an Army psychologist and was selected for promotion to Major (O-4) before joining the PHS. She accepted her commission believing her time in service would count toward her next promotion. Only after repeated follow-ups did she discover that her file reflected a promotion eligibility date nearly three years later than expected.

This misclassification has real-world consequences. Without correction, it not only delays her promotion and financial compensation but may also impede future career advancement.

In her role at the Department of Defense, she has excelled by taking on supervisory duties typically assigned to more senior officers, earning a PHS Commendation Medal, and receiving nomination for a prestigious clinician award. Yet her official rank does not reflect this performance, due to what her legal team describes as administrative negligence.

The filing requests her immediate eligibility for promotion to Lieutenant Commander (O-4), retroactive to her accession date, along with corresponding backpay. In the alternative, the officer seeks compensation equal to the accession bonus she would have received had she been correctly classified.

“This case is not just about one officer,” Thayer emphasized. “It’s about setting a precedent to ensure that no service member is penalized for trusting the system. We expect accountability, clarity, and fairness for those who dedicate their lives to service.”

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC
The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, based in Washington, D.C., is a nationally recognized firm that defends the rights of uniformed service members and federal employees. With decades of experience in courts-martial, promotion disputes, medical board appeals, and security clearance litigation, the firm is committed to ensuring justice for those who serve.

Disclaimer:
This press release is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Past outcomes do not guarantee future results. For personalized legal assistance, please contact an attorney licensed to practice in your jurisdiction.

 

Securing Medical Retirement: Navigating MEB, Disability Ratings, and the Fight for Full Benefits

Posted on by Becky Haugen

When a service member or federal employee is forced to medically retire, the battle is often just beginning. What should be a medically supported transition can quickly turn into an administrative nightmare—especially when the disability rating assigned by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) or Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) doesn’t reflect the full extent of their service-connected conditions.

The 30% and 50% Thresholds: More Than Just Numbers

For military personnel, a disability rating below 30% at separation can mean being cut off from full military retirement and healthcare benefits—even while the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) may assign a much higher rating for the same condition.

Even more critically, those medically retiring after 20 years of service need a minimum VA disability rating of 50% to receive Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP)—the ability to collect both retirement and disability benefits in full. Anything less results in an offset that significantly reduces long-term financial security.

“For service members approaching medical retirement, achieving a 50% VA rating is absolutely crucial if they want to access concurrent retirement and disability benefits,” says Annie Morgan, Senior Military Defense Counsel at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon. “That rating threshold can mean the difference between a full pension and a lifetime of lost entitlements.”

Morgan emphasizes the importance of including all physical and mental health conditions in one’s VA claim, along with detailed, service-connected documentation and the use of specific language that aligns with VA criteria.

The Fallout of an Inaccurate Rating

Too often, service members are rushed out of service with a DOD disability rating that doesn’t align with the medical evidence or the VA’s later determination. A recent Stars and Stripes report revealed widespread inconsistencies in how the Department of Defense and the VA assign disability ratings, particularly for combat-wounded veterans:

“A review of cases by The Associated Press found that some combat-injured troops received low DOD ratings despite severe conditions later rated at 70% or higher by the VA.”

— Stars and Stripes, March 21, 2025
Read full article

These discrepancies leave veterans without the retirement they earned and push them into lengthy appeals or corrections through the Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR).

Legal Support Can Make the Difference

This is where the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon can make a critical difference. As one of the nation’s premier military defense and administrative law firms, the firm has extensive experience representing service members and federal employees at every stage of the medical retirement process.

Whether you’re:

  • Challenging a low disability rating from the MEB or PEB
  • Filing a VA disability appeal to maximize your rating
  • Requesting a correction through the BCMR to secure retirement pay retroactively
  • Protecting your security clearance while undergoing medical retirement
  • Or seeking medical retirement as a federal civilian employee

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon brings decades of experience to your side. The firm has secured life-changing results for clients who were improperly separated or mis-rated, restoring retirement benefits, back pay, and dignity.

Steps You Can Take Right Now

  1. Document Every Condition. Make sure all medical issues—especially mental health—are recorded in your military or federal medical file.
  2. File a Detailed VA Claim. Include every diagnosis, symptom, and its impact on your ability to work or perform daily tasks. Use specific language tied to VA rating criteria.
  3. Don’t Rush Retirement. If you’re close to hitting 20 years, make every effort to reach that threshold. It significantly changes your eligibility for benefits.
  4. Push Back Against Low Ratings. Appeal decisions from both the VA and the DOD if they do not reflect your medical reality. You have legal rights to challenge those outcomes.
  5. Seek Experienced Legal Counsel. Navigating the MEB, VA system, and BCMR is incredibly complex—having a team that specializes in these areas can maximize your outcome.

Final Thoughts

Medical retirement is more than a paperwork process—it’s the final chapter in your military or federal career, and it deserves the full weight of accuracy, fairness, and advocacy. If your service has come at the cost of your health, don’t settle for less than the benefits you earned. Get the right support, fight for the correct rating, and ensure your retirement reflects your sacrifice.

Key Resources

  • VA Disability Compensation Overview
  • Concurrent Retirement and Disability Pay (CRDP)
  • DoD Disability Evaluation System (DES) Guide
  • Board for Correction of Military Records (BCMR) Process

📎 Learn more: https://www.militarydefense.com
📞 Schedule a consultation: 202-546-9575

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.