In 2014, then–Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued a groundbreaking memorandum directing military review boards to give “liberal consideration” to veterans seeking discharge upgrades due to PTSD and related mental health conditions. In 2017, the Kurta Memo reinforced and expanded that policy, making it clear that a veteran’s testimony alone—oral or written—may establish the existence of a condition, that it existed during service, and that it mitigates or excuses the discharge.
These policies were meant to end decades of injustice, where service members with undiagnosed trauma were discharged for misconduct without anyone recognizing the underlying mental health issues.
Unfortunately, despite these clear directives, some veterans are still being met with dismissive advisory opinions that ignore the very guidance the Boards are bound to follow.
What Liberal Consideration Really Means
The Hagel and Kurta Memos—and BCNR’s own governing instruction, SECNAVINST 5420.193—require the Board to:
Give full weight to lay evidence, such as personal statements or letters from family, friends, and fellow service members.
Consider childhood trauma and pre-service mental health conditions as part of the overall picture.
Accept behavioral changes, indirect evidence, and contemporaneous records as sufficient proof of mental health issues.
Recognize that a formal diagnosis is not required, particularly when the veteran lacks access to medical care or is unable to undergo new evaluations decades later.
The Kurta Memo couldn’t be more explicit:
“The veteran’s testimony alone, oral or written, may establish the existence of a condition or experience, that the condition or experience existed during or was aggravated by military service, and that the condition or experience excuses or mitigates the discharge.”
In other words, Boards cannot simply dismiss a veteran’s account because there isn’t a doctor’s letter attached.
A Recent Example of a Broken System
In a recent case, we represented a veteran who had documented childhood trauma and multiple corroborating lay statements describing his mental health decline during service.
We submitted:
A personal statement detailing his traumatic upbringing, emotional instability, and worsening depression during military service.
Statements from others confirming his longstanding mental health struggles.
School records showing he had emotional and learning disabilities
Medical records from service reflecting neglected medical needs that exacerbated his mental distress.
This is exactly the type of evidence the Hagel and Kurta Memos say must be given liberal consideration. Yet the advisory opinion we received blithely stated there was “no evidence” of a mental health condition and that no “medical or mental health evidence” was submitted—completely disregarding their own policy.
Why This Matters
When Boards dismiss veterans’ own testimony—or demand a formal diagnosis decades later—they effectively rewrite the rules, making it harder for veterans to get justice. For many, seeking a new diagnosis means reopening old wounds, facing significant financial burdens, and reliving trauma they’ve tried to move past.
That’s exactly what the Hagel and Kurta Memos were supposed to prevent.
Courts have repeatedly rebuked Boards for failing to follow these directives. In Monk v. Mabus and Kennedy v. Esper, federal courts required reconsideration of cases where the Navy and Army Boards ignored liberal consideration. Similarly, Doyon v. United States reaffirmed that Kurta Memo guidance applies to correction petitions and must be followed.
When Boards ignore their own policies, their actions risk being arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA)—and they can be challenged in federal court.
Holding Boards Accountable
Veterans deserve better than rubber-stamped advisory opinions that contradict clear policy. If you—or someone you know—has been denied relief despite providing testimony and lay evidence of mental health conditions, you are not alone.
Legal advocacy may be necessary to hold the Boards accountable and ensure they apply the liberal consideration framework the way it was intended.
If you’ve faced an unfair discharge review or record correction denial, reach out to the Griffin Law Firm. Veterans have fought hard for these policies—and we’ll fight just as hard to make sure they’re honored.