A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit brought by a Navy veteran who spent years trying to overturn a 1981 medical discharge decision, ruling that the military was within its rights to rely on a “presumption of regularity” even though the original records explaining the decision have been lost for decades.
In a memorandum opinion issued Friday, U.S. District Judge Jia M. Cobb granted summary judgment to the Department of Defense, ending James Anderson’s legal bid to increase his 20% disability rating to at least 30%.
That 10% difference has kept Anderson from qualifying for lifelong medical retirement benefits since he left the service 45 years ago.
Anderson, who served from 1968 to 1973, suffered injuries to both knees and his right shoulder. In 1976, a Physical Evaluation Board (PEB) initially gave him a 30% rating, placing him on the Temporary Disability Retired List.
However, following a re-evaluation in 1981, a second board lowered that rating to 20%. Because the new score fell below the 30% threshold for retirement, Anderson was separated from the Navy with a one-time lump-sum payment instead of a monthly pension.
READ: Nuclear Contractor With 36 Cancers Wins New Chance At Federal Compensation
The central mystery of the case involves why the rating dropped. While Anderson’s 1981 records list three diagnoses—knee issues, enthesitic syndrome, and fibrositis syndrome—the final 20% rating only appeared to account for his knees. The other two conditions were listed but assigned no specific percentage.
Anderson argued that the Navy “failed to code and rate” his other disabilities, an error he claimed cost him his retirement. He eventually took his case to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) in 2020. However, the BCNR found that the complete 1981 file detailing the board’s deliberations had been lost.
Without those records, the BCNR relied on a legal principle known as the “presumption of regularity,” which assumes that government officials perform their duties correctly unless there is “clear and convincing” evidence to the contrary.
“The 1981 PEB’s reversal is only unexplained because the files that likely document its reasoning are missing,” Judge Cobb wrote. She noted that while Anderson saw the rating drop as an error, the board could have legally concluded that his shoulder and other conditions did not significantly impair his ability to work at that time.
The court also stood by an advisory opinion from a medical officer who reviewed Anderson’s available records and found “insufficient support” for a higher rating. Dr. Robert Alonso, a BCNR physician advisor, noted that the “mere presence of a medical condition” does not automatically guarantee a disability rating unless it renders a service member unfit for duty.
READ: Price Of Prevention: Alan Dershowitz Likens Iran Strike To Thwarting Second World War
Anderson had argued that more recent laws and court cases should force the Navy to look at his conditions collectively. The judge disagreed, stating that the BCNR was not required to retroactively apply 2008 laws to a decision made in 1981.
“Because the BCNR cannot know the 1981 PEB’s reasoning, the BCNR was correct in applying the presumption of regularity,” the opinion stated.
The ruling officially denies Anderson’s motion for summary judgment and affirms the BCNR’s previous denials. As the judge noted, the burden was on the veteran to prove a mistake was made, a task made nearly impossible by the passage of time and the missing paperwork.
Please make a small donation to the Tampa Free Press to help sustain independent journalism. Your contribution enables us to continue delivering high-quality, local, and national news coverage.
Sign up: Subscribe to our free newsletter for a curated selection of top stories delivered straight to your inbox
