Brian D. Schenk of midwest military & Veterans law has researched and drafted numerous federal court litigation materials and applications to military record-correction boards and discharge review boards.  Below is a sampling of the types results his work has achieved or substantially contributed to:


Navy Formal PEB Places client on TDRL with combat-related designation 

In August 2017, Mr. Schenk represented a Naval member at a Formal Physical Evaluation Board (FPEB).  At the hearing, the PEB placed the client on the Temporary Disability Retired List (TDRL) with a combat-related designation, effectively overturning previous findings by the Medical Evaluation Board (MEB) and Informal Physical Evaluation Board (IPEB).  

The case involved novel and unique circumstances wherein the client was claiming combat-related PTSD despite not physically being in a zone of danger.  After researching the issue and crafting persuasive written material, Mr. Schenk successfully argued that the client’s unique circumstances fell within the requirements for combat-related disability under 10 U.S.C. § 1413a.

After the FPEB issued its findings, Mr. Schenk then successfully petitioned the Veterans Administration for a rating increase to 70% under the Integrated Disability Evaluation System (IDES) rules for reconsideration.


Survivor Benefit Plan Annuity Retroactively Awarded

After months of effort, the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS) paid Mr. Schenk’s client a sizable five-figure lump-sum Survivor Benefit Plan (SBP) annuity payment.  Due to a variety of extraordinary factors, procuring the payment required months of coordination with the Department of Justice, Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) and DFAS.

Unbeknownst to the client, his retired Naval officer father who passed away years ago, had paid into SBP, which is a plan designed to provide survivors with cost-of-living income while they are minors and/or attending college.  The client completed college without receiving any SBP annuity and moved on with his career for years until he received notice from a plaintiff in a pending United States Court of Federal Claims (CFC) action that essentially claimed entitlement to the client’s portion of the annuity.  Mr. Schenk, who is licensed to practice in the CFC, contacted the Department of Justice (counsel for the United States) and informed them that his client intended to file an administrative claim for his portion of the SBP benefit.  This delayed the CFC litigation--and kept his client out of court--while Mr. Schenk coordinated with DFAS to submit a BCNR application that effectively removed a statutory cap on the amount his client could receive.  After successfully petitioning the BCNR to remove the cap through a retroactive records correction, Mr. Schenk then petitioned DFAS, who disbursed a sizable lump sum to his client.


Security clearance protected

Mr. Schenk’s client received a notice of intent to revoke his security clearance due to allegations contained in an Army Criminal Investigations Command (Army CID) investigation.  In response, Mr. Schenk compiled a rebuttal that systematically attacked CID’s findings and emphasized key mitigating evidence in support of his client’s request to keep his clearance.  In June 2017, the Department of Defense decided not to revoke the client’s clearance. 



In March 2015, Mr. Schenk, in conjunction with a stellar legal team that included attorneys from prominent Supreme Court litigation firm, Jenner and Block, acted as co-counsel on a petition for a writ of certiorari filed with the United States Supreme Court in Schwalier v. Carter.

The petition raised the question of whether certain provisions of the Defense Officer Personnel Management Act violates the Appointments Clause. Also supporting the petition as Amicus Curiae was the Military Officers Association of America & the General Officers’ Network as well as the Air Force Association and former Air Force Secretaries Dr. James G. Roche and Michael W. Wynne.



Partial summary judgment in federal court holding a Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) decision arbitrary and capricious in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and remanding the matter to the Secretary of the Navy for further proceedings.  

In this case, the BCNR had failed to provide any basis for the Court to conclude that its decision was the product of reasoned decision making, which is a violation of the APA.

 



PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FEDERAL COURT HOLDING UNLAWFUL DECISION A DECISION OF THE ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS (ABCMR) AND REMANDING THE CASE FOR PROPER CONSIDERATION. 

The ABCMR had failed to adequately address the arguments the plaintiff had presented to it.  On remand, when forced to address these arguments, the ABCMR granted full relief entitling the plaintiff removal of an adverse Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and Special Selection Boards (SSB) who will determine whether he should be retroactively promoted.

 



Full relief from the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) relieving ROTC scholarship recipient of a substantial outstanding debt. 

Due to health problems, the cadet could not complete satisfactorily complete the program’s physical fitness requirements. The Army stopped paying the cadet’s tuition while the university still allowed her to remain in school. As a result, the university sought substantial tuition reimbursement from the cadet. Based on the arguments made in an application to the ABCMR, the Board found the cadet’s benefits unjustly had been suspended and corrected her records to reflect that she had remained in the ROTC program. The corrections resulted in the Army settling the cadet’s outstanding debt with the university.

 


Discharge upgrade by the Naval Discharge Review Board (NDRB) and reenlistment code upgrade by the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR).  

Client was a former Marine who had received a General (Under Honorable Conditions).  On a paper review, the DRB had already upgraded the Marine from an Other than Honorable to a General discharge for reason of misconduct.  Upon re-application, the NDRB further upgraded the discharge to Honorable but failed to remove barriers to the client’s reenlistment.  Upon application to the BCNR, the Board finally upgraded the client’s reenlistment code to RE-1 and paved the way for future service.



Summary judgment in federal court setting aside unlawful decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) and remanding the case for proper consideration. 

On remand, the ABCMR granted favorable relief for an Army chaplain who had been unjustly issued a negative Officer Evaluation Report (OER) and denied promotion to colonel.  The ABCMR ordered redaction of all adverse language from the OER and directed that the chaplain be reconsidered for promotion to colonel based upon a corrected record.



Successful grant of state medical license for former Navy physician.  

Years ago, the physician was subjected to adverse privileging recommendations that were later rejected by the cognizable authority who reinstated the physician’s privileges without restriction. Nonetheless, the ordeal left its mark and presented red flags for a state medical licensing board considering the physician’s application to practice medicine. The Board requested several explanations and significant amounts of documentation, much of which the physician did not possess due to the passage of time. Despite these obstacles, Mr. Schenk and his former firm were able to gather the documentation from the Navy through repeated, targeted requests. They were further able to assist the physician in explaining complicated Navy procedures to the licensing board that left no doubt the physician was a competent provider who should receive a license without hesitation.



Full relief from the Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (AFBCMR).  

Client was an ROTC cadet who was wrongfully disenrolled and faced significant debt recoupment.  The AFBCMR directed removal of the client’s record of disenrollment and ceased all recoupment actions.



Denial of Defendant United States of America’s motion to dismiss Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) action.  

The Defendant argued that Plaintiff had failed to meet a pre-suit notice requirement in the District of Colombia’s Medical Malpractice Proceedings Act (MMPA).  Based on Mr. Schenk’s research and writing, Plaintiff argued that the Court could and should waive the requirements of the MMPA in Plaintiff’s case.  The Court agreed and denied the Defendant’s motion to dismiss.  The denial paved the way for a six-figure settlement.


NOTE: 
Each case is unique and past results do not provide a guarantee of future outcomes in any given case.