Introduction
On July 16, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an important precedential decision for veterans seeking retroactive medical retirement. In Bee v. United States, the court held that the statutory requirement for “liberal consideration” under 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) applies to a correction board’s retrospective determination of whether a former Service member with qualifying post-traumatic stress disorder (“PTSD”) or traumatic brain injury (“TBI”) was medically unfit for continued service. Bee v. United States, No. 2024-2306, slip op. at 20–25 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2026).
The decision is significant for a second reason. The Federal Circuit also held that a correction board cannot determine fitness merely by asking whether the Service member successfully performed the particular job held immediately before separation. Instead, the board must identify the duties reasonably expected of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating and evaluate the member’s medical limitations against those duties. Id. at 10–15.
The Facts of Bee
William Olas Bee’s case arose from combat-related PTSD and TBI that were never evaluated through the military disability system before his separation. Bee served in the Marine Corps from 1999 until 2013 and deployed to Afghanistan four times. During those deployments, he suffered significant head trauma and exposure to multiple improvised explosive device explosions. The Marine Corps diagnosed him with TBI and PTSD, and he spent a period on limited duty. Id. at 2–3.
Bee nevertheless returned to duty, was promoted to staff sergeant, and became an Infantry Unit Leader. He later served as an instructor for Navy chaplains and medical personnel before voluntarily separating through a force-shaping program in 2013. The Marine Corps never referred him to a Medical Evaluation Board (“MEB”) to determine whether his PTSD and TBI rendered him unfit for continued service. Id. at 3.
After separation, the Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) rated Bee’s PTSD and TBI at 70 percent each and assigned him a combined 100 percent disability rating. Bee later petitioned the Board for Correction of Naval Records (“BCNR”) to change the narrative reason for his separation from force shaping to medical disability retirement. The BCNR denied relief, concluding that Bee had been fit when discharged, and the Court of Federal Claims upheld that determination. Id. at 3–5.
Liberal Consideration Applies to Historical Fitness
The central holding in Bee is that liberal consideration reaches the very question that often decides a retroactive medical-retirement case: whether the veteran was actually unfit at the time of separation.
Section 1552(h) requires correction boards, in qualifying cases involving PTSD or TBI, to give liberal consideration to whether those conditions potentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the member’s discharge. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2)(B). The Government argued that this requirement did not extend to the separate determination of medical fitness. The Federal Circuit rejected that distinction.
Because medical retirement under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 requires a finding that the member was unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating, Bee could not obtain the requested correction without proving historical unfitness. His fitness determination therefore fell directly within the circumstances resulting in his discharge. Bee, slip op. at 20–22.
Accordingly, a correction board may not acknowledge PTSD or TBI under a liberal standard and then evaluate the decisive issue of historical unfitness under an ordinary evidentiary standard.
Liberal Consideration Requires More Than Boilerplate
The Federal Circuit also made clear that liberal consideration requires more than a statement that the Board reviewed all available evidence.
The BCNR had considered Bee’s diagnoses and medical evidence, but the court found that ordinary consideration was insufficient. Liberal consideration requires a more lenient evidentiary approach to the veteran’s evidence of unfitness. On remand, the BCNR must actually apply that standard and make its application apparent in the decision. Id. at 23–25.
This distinction matters because correction-board decisions frequently state that the Board “carefully considered” the applicant’s evidence without explaining whether liberal consideration affected the evidentiary analysis. After Bee, that formulation may be inadequate where § 1552(h) applies. The Board’s reasoning should demonstrate that liberal consideration changed how it assessed evidence bearing on historical fitness.
Fitness Is Not Limited to the Member’s Last Assignment
The court separately rejected the BCNR’s reliance on Bee’s successful performance as an instructor as sufficient evidence that he remained fit.
Bee’s primary military occupational specialty was Infantry Unit Leader. The relevant question was therefore whether his PTSD and TBI prevented reasonable performance of the duties expected of an Infantry Unit Leader, not merely whether he could successfully perform the comparatively narrow duties of his instructor assignment. Id. at 10–14.
That holding reflects the broader disability standard used throughout the military services: fitness turns on the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating. Department of the Navy policy likewise requires consideration of whether medical conditions prevent reasonable performance of those duties. SECNAVINST 1850.4F, para. 4(e).
Thus, successful performance in an administrative, instructional, headquarters, or otherwise accommodated billet does not necessarily establish fitness. It is relevant evidence, but it cannot substitute for the required comparison between the member’s medical limitations and the duties reasonably expected of the member’s military position.
Deployability Remains Relevant
The Federal Circuit also rejected the idea that deployability may simply be ignored because nondeployability does not automatically establish unfitness.
The BCNR failed to adequately address deployability as part of Bee’s fitness analysis. Although the inability to deploy does not necessarily compel a finding of unfitness, the court held that deployability may still materially influence the ultimate determination. Bee, slip op. at 14–15.
That distinction is important. The Department of the Navy’s current disability framework continues to treat deployability and the ability to perform duties commensurate with office, grade, rank, or rating as related readiness considerations. BUMEDINST 6000.19A expressly ties retention recommendations to whether the member can perform military duties and deploy commensurate with those requirements. BUMEDINST 6000.19A, encl. (2), para. 3(a)(10)(b).
What Bee Means for Retroactive Medical-Retirement Claims
Bee strengthens retroactive medical-retirement claims in two distinct ways.
Firstly, when 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) applies, liberal consideration extends to the correction board’s historical fitness determination. The Board must do more than acknowledge PTSD or TBI; it must apply the more favorable evidentiary framework to the question of whether those conditions rendered the veteran unfit.
Secondly, the Board must measure fitness against the duties reasonably expected of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating. A favorable performance report or successful desk assignment may be relevant, but it does not end the inquiry when the member remained unable to perform broader military or occupational duties.
Bee does not establish that every veteran with PTSD or TBI is entitled to medical retirement. The Federal Circuit did not order Bee retired. It vacated the lower court’s judgment and required the BCNR to reconsider his case under the correct legal standards. Bee, slip op. at 25.
The decision nevertheless provides an important rule for future correction-board cases: a veteran’s historical fitness must be evaluated against the duties the veteran was actually expected to perform, and qualifying PTSD or TBI evidence must receive the liberal consideration Congress required.
If you are struggling with these issues, please do not hesitate to contact Joel Pettit Law to discuss your potential case.
