Tag: military law

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.

Press Release: Federal Court Rules Medical Malpractice Claims Against Department of Defense Tolled By Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act

Posted on by Becky Haugen

Order             Motion          Print PR

Press Release: Federal Court Rules Medical Malpractice Claims Against Department of Defense Tolled By Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act

On October 31, 2023, the Honorable Rudolph Contreras, District Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, denied the government’s motion to dismiss in Larumbe v. Secretary of Defense, holding that medical malpractice claims against the Department of Defense (“DoD”) are tolled by the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act (50 U.S.C. § 3936). The Court’s ruling marks a significant victory not only for the plaintiffs in this action, but for all those who seek to hold the DoD accountable for medical malpractice under 10 U.S.C. § 2733a.

In January of 2019, Maria Martinez, who was on active duty in the United States Army, became concerned about her health and requested a medical screening for breast cancer. An oncologist evaluated Martinez. Based on Martinez’s family history, possession of the BRCA2 gene mutation, and physical symptoms, the oncologist recommended that Martinez’s primary care physician perform a diagnostic MRI to determine whether Martinez had breast cancer. Martinez’s primary care physician, however, incorrectly ordered a screening, rather than a diagnostic, MRI. Because of this negligent clerical error, DoD’s health insurance denied Martinez the screening MRI on three separate occasions. Each time, Martinez was told she did not meet the criteria for a screening MRI. Inexcusably, Martinez’s primary care physician also failed to order any different type of procedure to determine whether Martinez had breast cancer. Ten months after Martinez first requested breast cancer testing, she was admitted to an emergency room with shortness of breath. Finally, a doctor gave Martinez a diagnostic examination, including a biopsy, which confirmed that Martinez had breast cancer. By this stage, though, there was nothing that could be done – Martinez’s breast cancer had become so advanced that it was incurable. Tragically, and as a direct result of incompetent medical treatment she received from DoD providers, Martinez died at the age of 26 in December of 2021.

A month before her death and while still serving in the military, Martinez filed a claim for medical malpractice with the DoD. The Department of Army Tort Claims Division denied Martinez’s claim, asserting that her claim was untimely filed. After her death, Eduardo Larumbe and Christopher Fernando Montas Correa —Martinez’s father and husband, respectively – appealed the denial to the Defense Health Agency’s Military Malpractice Claim Appeals Board, which affirmed the denial, again based on untimeliness. Plaintiffs then sued under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 701 et seq.). requesting that the District Court set aside as unlawful the DoD’s denial of Martinez’s medical malpractice claim under 10 U.S.C. § 2733a.

The government moved to dismiss the case, arguing first that 10 U.S.C. § 2735 bars judicial review of the plaintiffs’ medical malpractice claim, and second that the plaintiffs’ claim was not timely filed, because 10 U.S.C. § 2733a requires actions to be filed within two years of accrual.

The Court denied the government’s motion to dismiss, rejecting both of the government’s arguments. First, the Court determined that while 10 U.S.C. § 2735 does bar judicial review in certain instances, that bar of judicial review does not extend to instances where a plaintiff’s due process rights have been violated. The Court held that in the present case, the plaintiffs had asserted a violation of their due process rights, because the government failed to consider the tolling of the statute of limitations for Martinez’s medical malpractice claim, as required by the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act. For this reason, the Court also rejected the government’s second argument, and held that the tolling provisions of the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act apply to military medical malpractice claims brought under 10 U.S.C. § 2773a. Because Martinez was serving in the military at all times relevant to the litigation, the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act tolled the statute of limitations, and her claim was timely filed.

Although this is a major victory for Eduardo Larumbe and Christopher Fernando Montas Correa, the fight is not over. The firm is proud to represent these men and carry Maria Martinez’s legacy of service. We will not rest until justice is done.

If you or a friend or loved one in the service has experienced medical malpractice at the hands of DoD medical providers, the Servicemembers’ Civil Relief Act can help ensure that your claim is timely filed and that you receive the relief you deserve.

For more information, please contact:

LAW OFFICES OF DAVID P. SHELDON, PLLC
100 M Street SE, Suite 600
Washington, DC 20003
(202) 546 9575 (w)
(202) 546 0135 (f)
www.militarydefense.com