The Cornell Law School Veterans Law Practicum recently secured an important victory in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims on behalf of a transgender Black U.S. Army veteran seeking long-overdue recognition of his service. The court granted judgment in the veteran’s favor, holding that the Army Board for Correction of Military Records acted arbitrarily, capriciously, and contrary to law in denying his request for a medical retirement.

The case centered on the Army’s failure to medically retire a combat veteran who deployed to Afghanistan, where he endured multiple traumatic stressor events while performing entry control duties. After returning from deployment, he began exhibiting symptoms of severe, undiagnosed PTSD—including paranoia, psychosis, and homicidal ideation. Rather than referring him to the Disability Evaluation System to assess his fitness for duty, the Army allowed him to complete his enlistment and separate without evaluation. Within months of discharge, he was hospitalized for psychosis and has faced recurrent hospitalizations and homelessness in the years since.

More than a decade later, the veteran petitioned the Army Board for Correction of Military Records pro se, seeking correction of his records to reflect medical retirement. The veteran then appealed his denial to the Court of Federal Claims. A clerk for the presiding judge reached out to the Veterans Law Practicum to explore whether the clinic could provide legal assistance. After a review of the case, the practicum accepted full representation of the veteran and spent over a year litigating the matter—submitting extensive briefing and oral argument before the court.

The judge ultimately ruled that the Army’s decision was unsupported by substantial evidence and violated the Administrative Procedure Act, issuing a reported opinion now relied upon by veterans’ advocates nationwide pursuing medical retirement upgrades for wounded service members. Reported opinions are published decisions that carry precedential value within the Court of Federal Claims. They establish or clarify law, interpret statutes, or address significant issues that may guide future litigants. As such, they may be cited as binding precedent within the Court of Federal Claims and persuasive authority in other courts.

“This victory reflects what our practicum stands for—fighting for justice for those who have served but were failed by the system meant to protect them,” said Jimmy Hardwick, director of the Veterans Law Practicum. “The court’s decision affirms the broader principle that every veteran deserves fair and lawful judicial review of the decisions issued by military records correction boards.”