When Fitness Becomes a File: Why the Navy’s New PT Policy Deserves a Closer Look

When Fitness Tests Are COER and Discharge of Military Status

For many sailors, a physical fitness assessment is not just a test, it is a line in a permanent record. A line that follows them into evaluations, promotion boards, medical reviews, and sometimes into the final decision on whether they are allowed to finish their service or earn the retirement and benefits they have spent years working toward.

That is why the Navy’s recent decision to double the annual physical fitness assessment requirement  and to mandate administrative separation after three failures within four years, deserves more than a headline glance. It deserves a careful, human review of how policy decisions ripple through real careers.

According to reporting by Navy Times, the Navy frames this policy as a readiness initiative. In theory, higher standards and clearer enforcement promote fairness. In practice, however, sailors know that what looks clean on paper often becomes complicated in the lived reality of injury, recovery, command climate, and medical evaluation boards.

For the sailor who twists a knee on deployment.
For the one navigating chronic pain while still meeting mission demands.
For the service member who followed every rule, every profile, every medical instruction and still finds themselves one failed test away from an administrative process that can end a career.

This policy change does not exist in a vacuum.

A failed fitness test is rarely just about fitness. It can trigger a counseling entry, influence a COER or FITREP, or quietly color how a service member is perceived by leadership. Once in the record, it often requires significant time and legal literacy to rebut, contextualize, or undo.

Under the new policy, the Navy has removed much of the discretion that once allowed commanding officers to weigh the totality of a sailor’s service. Where leaders previously had room to recognize exemplary performance despite a temporary setback, the system is now largely automatic. Three failures in four years, and separation proceedings must begin.

For sailors navigating the MEB/PEB process, this rigidity can be especially dangerous. Medical evaluations already place service members in a vulnerable administrative position, one where timelines, documentation, and narrative framing matter enormously. Add a fitness failure into that mix, and the consequences can multiply.

The result? Sailors spend months and sometimes years fighting to prove that a single metric does not define their service.

This is not the first time policy shifts have left scars on service records.

During COVID, fitness testing requirements were paused, altered, and then reinstated. While many service members were eventually allowed to return to service, the administrative damage was not always undone. Negative marks remained in records. Morale suffered. Trust eroded. And in many cases, sailors bore the burden of correcting problems created by rapidly changing policies they did not control.

The lesson from that period is clear: even when policies are later softened or reversed, the paper trail often remains.

The Navy has announced that prior PFA failures will be “reset” for certain purposes. But sailors should not mistake that for a complete erasure. Selection boards, special programs, and discretionary reviews may still see the past and once a negative evaluation exists, it can take significant effort to neutralize its impact.

What Is Really at Stake

Administrative separation is not a neutral outcome. It can affect:

  • Eligibility to complete an agreed-upon term of service
  • Retirement timelines and pension qualification
  • VA disability claims and benefit offsets
  • Post-service employment and security clearances
  • The dignity of a career defined by years of honorable service

When fitness policy becomes a blunt instrument, it risks transforming short-term readiness goals into long-term injustice.

Service members who have played by the rules, complied with medical guidance, and maintained exemplary duty performance should not find their careers derailed by a system that lacks nuance — especially when medical realities and command culture play such a large role in outcomes.

A Call for Vigilance, Not Fear

This opinion is not an argument against fitness standards. It is a call for awareness and self-advocacy.

Sailors must understand that every fitness test, counseling entry, and evaluation comment contributes to a larger administrative story, one that may later be reviewed by medical boards, separation authorities, or retirement adjudicators. Protecting the right to serve a full term and to receive the benefits earned through that service often depends on how well that story is documented and defended.

Readiness matters.
But so does fairness.
And fairness demands that policy never lose sight of the people it governs.

About the Firm

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, is a Washington, D.C. based military and federal employment law firm representing service members worldwide in courts-martial, administrative separations, medical boards (MEB/PEB), security clearance matters, and retirement and disability cases. The firm is nationally recognized for protecting the rights, careers, and benefits of those who serve.

Disclaimer

This article is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading this article does not create an attorney-client relationship. Service members facing adverse administrative action should seek individualized legal counsel.

References & Citations

  • Navy Times, Navy doubles annual PT test requirement, updates failure guidelines (Dec. 30, 2025).
  • MyNavy HR, NAVADMIN 264/25 Fact Sheet – Physical Fitness Assessment Policy Updates.

Honoring Every American Who Has Worn the Uniform —This Veterans Day, We Stand With You

Honor Veterans

On Veterans Day, we reflect on more than flags, parades or ceremony. We remember the

promise made by every man and woman who raised their right hand and said: “I will serve.”

 

From the boots on the ground to the officers and enlisted in the skies, from those on active duty

today to those who served decades ago, across the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps,

Space Force, Coast Guard, the Commissioned Corps of the United State Public Health Service

and those who serve in the National Oceanic Atmospheric Agency, those who serve in

uniforms carry our nation’s trust forward.

 

At the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, we’re honored to represent federal employees,

uniformed service members, veterans, and their families. We see every day the sacrifices that

accompany service — the hours away from home, the deployments, the weight of responsibility,

and the toll it takes on families.

 

And yet, for too many of our uniformed service members, including officers in the United States

Public Health Service Commissioned Corps (USPHS) and National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration Commissioned Officer Corps (NOAA Corps) that promise of service is coupled

with a broken promise of retirement. The fact is: they answered the call. They upheld the oath.

They trusted the system. And too often, they find themselves held back from full retirement

benefits.

 

That’s why we have launched our class-action effort, to make USPHS and NOAA retirees whole.

Because respect for service does not end when the uniform comes off. Respect must extend to

the benefits earned, the years of commitment kept.

 

This Veterans Day, let’s do more than say “thank you.”

 

Let’s act. Let’s honor the oath. Let’s secure dignity in retirement for those who stood watch for

our country and our communities.

 

If you are a uniformed service member — current, former, or transitioning — and believe your

retirement benefits have been delayed, withheld or mis-administered, now is the time to reach

out. Secure your voice. Join the effort.

 

From all of us at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC: Thank you for your service. We

honor you. We advocate for you. And we remain committed to holding the promise of retirement

true — because you kept your promise of service.  Let’s ensure your service is honored — not just with words, but with justice.

 

About Us:

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC represents federal employees, uniformed service

members, veterans, and their families across matters including disability retirement, military

justice, whistleblower relief, and class-action benefits litigation. This communication is for

informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an attorney

before making decisions regarding your legal rights.

Supreme Court Ruling in Soto v. United States Expands Retroactive CRSC Benefits for Veterans

Supreme Court Delivers a Legal Victory for Combat-Injured Veterans

In a unanimous decision handed down on June 12, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Marine Corps veteran Simon Soto, affirming that the Barring Act’s six-year statute of limitations does not apply to Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) claims. This landmark ruling significantly expands the scope of retroactive benefits available to thousands of disabled veterans nationwide.

Background

Simon Soto, a retired Marine, applied for CRSC benefits in 2016. While the Navy approved his eligibility, it limited his retroactive compensation to just six years, citing the Barring Act (31 U.S.C. § 3702), which generally prohibits payment of claims older than six years. Soto challenged this cap, arguing that the CRSC statute (10 U.S.C. § 1413a) was not subject to the Barring Act because it is administered under a distinct statutory scheme that gives the Secretary of the Navy independent settlement authority.

While a lower court initially sided with Soto, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed that decision, prompting Soto to petition the Supreme Court.

The Court’s Ruling

In its opinion in Soto v. United States, No. 23-1053, the Supreme Court ruled that the CRSC statute does indeed grant the Secretary the authority to “settle” claims, thereby placing CRSC outside the Barring Act’s limitations period. Writing for the Court, Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson emphasized that CRSC’s statutory structure empowers the Secretary to determine eligibility and the amount due—hallmarks of settlement authority.

“The CRSC statute is just such a law,” wrote Justice Jackson. “It authorizes the Secretary of the military department to determine eligibility and calculate the amount payable. The Barring Act therefore does not apply.”

Read the full opinion: Soto v. United States (SCOTUS Opinion, June 12, 2025)

What This Means for Veterans

This decision clears a long-standing bureaucratic hurdle for veterans who were previously capped at six years of retroactive CRSC payments. With the ruling, veterans may now be eligible for compensation dating back to when their entitlement began—even if it was more than six years ago.

This is especially impactful for retirees who:

  • Received delayed disability ratings from the VA.
  • Were unaware of CRSC eligibility due to miscommunication or misinformation.
  • Faced systemic delays in applying.

Estimates suggest that over 9,000 veterans affected by the six-year limit may now pursue additional tax-free benefits. Veterans previously denied full back pay under CRSC should revisit their claims immediately. Legal assistance from attorneys experienced in military compensation law may be essential in pursuing the additional entitlements now available under the Supreme Court’s ruling.

 

Legal Citations & Resources

This content is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC did not represent the plaintiff in this case. Veterans seeking to understand how this decision may impact their Combat-Related Special Compensation (CRSC) entitlements are encouraged to consult with a qualified attorney experienced in military compensation law. Every case is fact-specific, and legal outcomes may vary.

Successful Defense for PHS Officer at Board of Corrections

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon successfully represented an officer at the PHS Board for Corrections. The firm argued that the officer should receive years of constructive service credit for education, which is now being retroactively applied to the officer’s retirement pay multiplier.  The officer stands to make hundreds of thousands in additional retirement pay in the circumstance.