Former Navy Member Appeals Federal Ruling in Disability Benefits Case

Court Asked to Reconsider Standards Used to Deny Full Medical Retirement

A former Navy service member has appealed a federal court ruling that upheld the Department of the Navy’s disability benefits determination, arguing that the decision was contrary to statutory protections and unsupported by the administrative record. The appeal, filed with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, challenges the standards and methodology used by the Navy’s Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR) in assigning a 10% permanent disability rating—far below the threshold required for retirement benefits.

The appeal raises significant questions about how the military adjudicates disability claims involving mental health conditions, particularly Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) linked to combat-related service. The case centers on whether the PDBR misapplied regulatory guidance—specifically the Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD) § 4.129 and § 4.130—and whether it provided adequate justification for diverging from the Department of Veterans Affairs’ prior 30% disability rating.

According to court records, the appellant had served as a sensor operator involved in combat missions and was later diagnosed with PTSD. Despite this, the Navy separated the service member with a disability rating below the 30% threshold that would have guaranteed medical retirement and long-term benefits. A retroactive review by the PDBR provided temporary retirement benefits for a six-month window but ultimately affirmed the original 10% rating—an outcome the appellant contends is both legally flawed and medically unjust.

The appeal asserts that the PDBR failed to account for relevant medical evidence, improperly minimized symptoms of psychological trauma, and acted in conflict with governing Department of Defense policies that require minimum ratings for combat-related mental health conditions.

Attorneys from the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, who represent the appellant, seek reversal of the lower court’s judgment and a remand for proper reconsideration under the Administrative Procedure Act.

ABOUT THE LAW FIRM

The Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, PLLC, based in Washington, D.C., is nationally recognized for its expertise in military and federal litigation. The firm advocates for service members and federal employees in matters involving courts-martial, discharge upgrades, medical retirement, and administrative appeals.

DISCLAIMER

This press release is intended for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The outcome of any legal matter depends on the facts, law, and procedural posture of the case.

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Federal Court Rejects Army’s Denial of Reservist’s Application for Retirement Benefits

Federal Judge Finds Army’s Decision Arbitrary, Siding with Plaintiff Represented by Law Offices of David P. Sheldon

WASHINGTON, D.C. — April 3, 2025 — A federal court has sided with a retired Army Reserve officer in her challenge to the Army’s decision to separate her just four months shy of qualifying for military retirement. The case, brought under the Administrative Procedure Act, was remanded for further proceedings after U.S. District Judge Loren L. AliKhan ruled that the Army’s reasoning for denying retirement benefits was “arbitrary and capricious.”

The plaintiff, a decorated Lieutenant Colonel with nearly 18 years of honorable service, had sought a modest extension of her service to reach the 20-year retirement threshold. Although her original position was deemed “overstaffed,” she successfully pursued a transfer to an understaffed Civil Affairs unit only to be discharged days before the transfer was finalized.

The Army Board for Correction of Military Records unanimously recommended correcting her records to reflect 20 years of service and to award retroactive retirement pay. But in a move the court called confusing and unsupported, a Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army overruled that recommendation in a single paragraph. The court determined that the Army’s rejection lacked any meaningful explanation and misunderstood key facts in the case.

“This case isn’t just about one soldier, it’s about fairness and accountability in how the Army treats its own,” said Dylan Thayer, the plaintiff’s attorney and partner at the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon, a D.C.-based firm known for championing military rights. “We’re proud to fight for service members who’ve earned the benefits they were promised.”

The court’s decision sends the matter back to the Army for further review, giving the plaintiff a renewed chance to secure the retirement benefits she should have rightfully received.

About the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon
Based in Washington, D.C., the Law Offices of David P. Sheldon is one of the nation’s premier military law firms. With a track record of defending the rights of service members across all branches, the firm handles courts-martial, correction of military records, medical retirement claims, and constitutional rights cases. Visit www.militarydefense.com for more information.

Disclaimer:
The information provided in this article is for general educational and informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or legal representation. Individuals facing legal or administrative challenges should consult with a qualified attorney who is experienced in military and Federal law to receive guidance tailored to their specific circumstances.