Ward v. United States
133 Fed. Cl. 418
| Fed. Cl. | 2017Background
- Ward served on active duty as a JAG officer from Dec 2002 to July 4, 2006 and was medically separated as unfit for duty due to severe gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD).
- MEB (medical board) found severe GERD refractory to therapy, determined it was service‑incurred or permanently aggravated by service, and referred Ward to a PEB; the MEB relied on a gastroenterologist’s opinion and documented functional limitations.
- The informal PEB concluded Ward was unfit but found the condition existed prior to service and recommended separation without disability benefits; Ward waived a formal PEB.
- The VA later assigned Ward a 10% rating for GERD and eventually a 30% rating for PTSD (added after separation); Ward sought correction of military records with ABCMR, which denied his request.
- Ward sued in the Court of Federal Claims under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 seeking disability retirement/benefits; the court reviewed cross‑motions on the administrative record and remanded to the ABCMR.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction under Tucker Act / §1201 | Court has jurisdiction to review claim for disability pay under 10 U.S.C. § 1201 | Agrees Tucker Act §1491 + §1201 supply jurisdiction | Court: §1201 is money‑mandating; jurisdiction proper |
| Waiver of judicial review after Ward waived formal PEB | Waiver of formal PEB does not bar ABCMR review or CFC review of ABCMR decision | Argues Ward’s DA Form 199 waiver precludes review | Court: waiver of formal PEB does not bar ABCMR or CFC review of ABCMR decision |
| Whether ABCMR/PEB properly applied Army Reg. 635‑40 presumptions (service‑incurred or permanently aggravated GERD) | MEB found GERD service‑incurred/permanently aggravated; ABCMR/PEB ignored presumption and failed to explain why MEB was wrong; reasonable doubt required benefit of doubt to Ward | ABCMR relied on contrary medical assessment and record evidence that symptoms dated to college and reflected natural progression | Court: ABCMR failed to apply the regulation’s presumptions, did not articulate required medical findings to rebut presumption, and did not resolve competing medical opinions; remand ordered for compliance with AR 635‑40 |
| Whether ABCMR had to adopt VA PTSD and shoulder ratings | Ward: VA ratings show service connection and ABCMR should correct records (esp. PTSD) | Gov't: VA ratings are not dispositive of military fitness; ABCMR reasonably found no PTSD evidence at separation; shoulder claim not presented to ABCMR so waived | Court: ABCMR not required to adopt VA ratings; denial of PTSD correction sustained; shoulder claim waived (not reviewable) |
Key Cases Cited
- Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167 (Fed. Cir.) (Tucker Act requires separate money‑mandating source)
- Chambers v. United States, 417 F.3d 1218 (Fed. Cir.) (§1201 is money‑mandating for military disability pay)
- Bannum, Inc. v. United States, 404 F.3d 1346 (Fed. Cir.) (Rule 52.1 review on administrative record; trial on paper record)
- Heisig v. United States, 719 F.2d 1153 (Fed. Cir.) (deference to military but courts will set aside decisions lacking reasoned explanation)
- Gant v. United States, 417 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir.) (waiver of formal PEB bars review of that informal PEB decision but not ABCMR review)
- Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 776 (Ct. Cl.) (military takes a snapshot at separation; VA ratings not determinative of fitness)
- Rominger v. United States, 72 Fed. Cl. 268 (Court requires correction boards to examine relevant data and provide reasoned explanations)
- United States v. L.A. Tucker Truck Lines, Inc., 344 U.S. 33 (U.S.) (administrative objections must be raised to permit agency correction)