Tag: military law

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.

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.

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