A federal judge has struck a blow against a Pentagon policy regarding how military boards evaluate mental health claims, ordering the Army to take a second, harder look at a veteran’s request for medical retirement.
In a decision handed down Thursday, Judge Armando O. Bonilla of the U.S. Court of Federal Claims ruled that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records (ABCMR) failed to properly evaluate the case of Nathan D. White, a former soldier seeking to convert his disability separation into a medical retirement. The distinction is financially significant: a medical retirement offers lifelong pension payments, while a separation provides only a one-time lump sum.
The ruling in White v. United States specifically targeted a 2024 Pentagon policy directive—known as the “Vazirani Memo”—which instructed military boards to apply “liberal consideration” to discharge upgrades but not to medical fitness determinations.
READ: US Slashes At Houthi Smuggling Empire: Sanctions Hit Oil, Arms, And Aviation Networks
Judge Bonilla rejected that separation as “contradictory and unworkable.”
The Soldier’s Struggle
White, who served in the Regular Army from 2009 to 2015 and later in the Army Reserve, deployed to Afghanistan in 2011. During his deployment, he suffered a mental health crisis involving suicidal ideation, which medical personnel at the time linked to childhood trauma exacerbated by combat stress. While he eventually returned to duty and completed his active service honorably, his transition to the Army Reserve was rocky.
White stopped attending mandatory drills, eventually accruing enough unexcused absences to trigger separation proceedings. He argued that his Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) prevented him from attending. The Army, however, separated him in 2018 primarily for a back injury, finding his PTSD to be “fitting” for service—meaning it didn’t disable him from doing his job.
White’s attorneys argued that the Army effectively fired him for absenteeism that was actually a symptom of his service-connected mental health struggles.
READ: ‘Sanctuary’ Showdown: Trump Admin Targets Minnesota Leaders Over Refusal To Assist ICE
“Yes, And…”
The core legal battle centered on “liberal consideration,” a standard established by Congress requiring military boards to give the benefit of the doubt to veterans whose misconduct or discharge circumstances may have been caused by service-related trauma.
The government argued, based on the Vazirani Memo, that while liberal consideration applies to changing the reason on a discharge paper, it does not apply to the underlying medical decision of whether a soldier was fit for duty.
Judge Bonilla disagreed, using an analogy from improvisational theater to dismantle the government’s logic.
“This case demonstrates why the distinction drawn in the Vazirani Memo is both contradictory and unworkable,” Bonilla wrote. “Invoking the basic tenet of improv, these claims must be constructed in functional terms: ‘Yes, And . . .’”
The court ruled that if a soldier claims PTSD contributed to the circumstances of their discharge—in White’s case, missing drill—the board must apply liberal consideration to the fitness determination linked to those same facts.
Missing the Details
Beyond the policy rebuke, the court found the Army Board simply didn’t do its homework regarding White’s specific job duties.
When the Army originally denied White’s claim, it reasoned that because he could hold down a civilian job as a machinist, his PTSD wasn’t debilitating. The court found this insufficient. The opinion noted that the Army failed to compare White’s limitations against the specific, heavy demands of his Reserve job as a “Nodal Network Systems Operator-Maintainer.”
“The military is not an ordinary employer and, of course, service members are not ordinary employees,” Bonilla wrote. He noted that even if a soldier stops showing up, the military must prove their disability does not prevent them from performing specific military tasks before denying a retirement claim.
What Happens Next
The court did not grant White a medical retirement outright. Instead, it remanded the case back to the ABCMR. The Board has been given 120 days to conduct a new review.
During this remand, the Army must:
- Perform a specific task-by-task analysis of White’s Reserve job duties against his PTSD symptoms.
- Determine if his PTSD is related to combat.
- If combat-related, apply “liberal consideration” to whether the PTSD caused the absenteeism that led to his discharge.
- Assess whether White was “deployable” at the time of his discharge.
The court has retained jurisdiction over the matter to ensure the Army complies with the new instructions.
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
