Introduction
A recent Federal Circuit decision highlights a critical deadline for former Service members seeking retroactive medical retirement. In Johnson v. United States, decided August 4, 2026, the court held that a former Marine waited too long to bring his disability-retirement claim in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.
The decision matters because many former Service members spend years pursuing relief through the Board for Correction of Naval Records (“BCNR”), Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”), or Air Force Board for Correction of Military Records (“AFBCMR”). Those proceedings can make it seem as though the underlying disability-retirement case remains open. Johnson makes clear that this assumption can be dangerous.
The basic rule is straightforward: a Service member generally has six years to file a disability-retirement pay claim in the Court of Federal Claims after the claim legally accrues.
In many cases, that means six years from discharge or from the first final decision by a competent military disability board. Filing with a correction board usually does not stop or restart that six-year clock. See 28 U.S.C. § 2501; Johnson v. United States, No. 2025-1017, slip op. at 7–17 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 4, 2026).
What Happened in Johnson?
Christopher Johnson served in the Marine Corps in the early 1990s. After a serious automobile accident in 1991, he suffered significant injuries and was evaluated through the military disability system. In 1992, a Physical Evaluation Board (“PEB”) found Johnson unfit for continued military service. However, the PEB also concluded that his injuries resulted from intentional misconduct. That finding prevented him from receiving disability severance pay or medical retirement, and he was discharged in August 1992.
Years later, Johnson obtained records showing that a Naval Hospital commander had previously found his injuries to be in the line of duty. He then applied to the BCNR.
In 2017, the BCNR reversed the adverse line-of-duty finding and sent his case back for additional PEB review. But the later PEB reached a different problem. In 2018, it concluded that the evidence did not establish that Johnson had actually been unfit in 1992. Because it did not find him unfit, it did not assign a disability rating.
Johnson could have requested a formal PEB hearing, but he did not. The BCNR later upheld the result. Johnson eventually filed suit in the Court of Federal Claims in 2024, seeking disability-retirement pay dating back to his 1992 discharge.
The problem was timing.
The Six-Year Clock Started in 1992
The Federal Circuit held that Johnson’s claim accrued in 1992 when he was discharged after the original PEB had already ruled on his disability case.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 2501, a claim in the Court of Federal Claims generally must be filed within six years after it accrues. For military disability-retirement cases, that usually means when the first competent disability board finally denies retirement or when the Service member is discharged after that board has acted.
That meant Johnson’s deadline expired years before his 2024 lawsuit.
His later BCNR and PEB proceedings did not restart the clock.
This is the most important point for Service members: a later correction-board decision does not automatically create a new six-year period to sue for disability-retirement pay.
Correction-Board Review Usually Does Not Stop the Clock
Many former Service members first go to a BCMR or BCNR because those boards can correct military records and sometimes order new disability processing. That may be an appropriate step, but Johnson reinforces that correction-board review and Court of Federal Claims litigation are different legal processes.
In most disability-retirement cases, applying to a correction board is considered an optional administrative remedy. Because it is optional, filing a BCNR, ABCMR, or AFBCMR application generally does not stop the six-year statute of limitations for a separate retirement-pay claim.
That creates a serious trap.
A former Service member could spend years pursuing reconsideration, responding to advisory opinions, obtaining a remand, going through another PEB, and returning to the correction board. The case may appear active throughout that process, while the six-year court deadline continues running in the background.
By the time the correction-board process ends, the deadline to bring the retirement-pay claim may already have expired.
A Remand May Not Give You More Time
Johnson also argued that the BCNR’s favorable action and the later PEB review effectively reopened his case. The Federal Circuit rejected that argument.
There are limited situations where a true reopening by the military may affect when a claim accrues, but those circumstances are narrow. Johnson’s later proceedings occurred because he requested correction-board relief, not because the Navy independently reopened his case under a new regulation or legal rule.
The practical point is simple: a BCMR or BCNR remand should not be treated as automatically resetting the federal-court deadline.
Preserve Your Rights During a Remand
The case also shows why Service members should use every available procedural right after a correction-board remand.
After the later PEB found Johnson fit, he had the opportunity to request a formal hearing. He did not. The BCNR later relied on that fact when upholding the result.
A remand is not a guaranteed victory. If a case returns to a PEB, the Service member should carefully consider available rights to challenge findings, request a formal hearing where permitted, submit evidence, and preserve objections for later review.
What Johnson Means for Former Service Members
The decision is particularly important for former Service members seeking retroactive medical retirement, correction from disability severance pay to medical retirement, correction of a historical fitness or unfitness determination, or retirement pay after a BCMR or BCNR proceeding.
The key question should always be: When did the six-year period begin?
The answer depends on the procedural history. In some cases, the important date may be discharge. In others, it may be the first final decision by a competent disability board.
What former Service members should not assume is that a pending BCNR, ABCMR, or AFBCMR case protects the right to later file in the Court of Federal Claims.
The Practical Lesson
Johnson does not change the standards for finding a Service member fit or unfit. It does not change disability ratings or the underlying Disability Evaluation System (“DES”) rules.
Instead, it addresses whether a federal court still has authority to award disability-retirement pay after too much time has passed.
That can be outcome-determinative.
A former Service member may have strong medical evidence and may even obtain favorable action from a correction board. But if the six-year deadline under 28 U.S.C. § 2501 has expired, the Court of Federal Claims may be unable to hear the retirement-pay claim.
The main lesson from Johnson is simple: do not assume that a BCNR, ABCMR, or AFBCMR case stops the clock. It usually does not.
