Court Opinion

ID: 9365897
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-25 16:00:45.759596+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:15:48.387573
License: Public Domain

Case: 21-2095   Document: 63     Page: 1    Filed: 01/25/2023

   United States Court of Appeals
       for the Federal Circuit
                 ______________________

                  ROBERT L. DOYON,
                   Plaintiff-Appellant

                            v.

                   UNITED STATES,
                   Defendant-Appellee
                 ______________________

                       2021-2095
                 ______________________

     Appeal from the United States Court of Federal Claims
 in No. 1:19-cv-01964-LKG, Judge Lydia Kay Griggsby.
                  ______________________

                Decided: January 25, 2023
                 ______________________

     MICHAEL CLEMENTE, Latham & Watkins LLP, Wash-
 ington, DC, argued for plaintiff-appellant. Also repre-
 sented by EUGENE R. ELROD, ADAM MICHAEL GREENFIELD;
 REMINGTON LAMONS, Costa Mesa, CA; ROCHELLE BOBROFF,
 National Veterans Legal Services Program, Arlington, VA.

     ELIZABETH ANNE SPECK, Commercial Litigation
 Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
 tice, Washington, DC, argued for defendant-appellee. Also
 represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, STEVEN JOHN
 GILLINGHAM, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY.

    ALEXANDER     O.   CANIZARES,   Perkins   Coie,   LLP,
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63     Page: 2    Filed: 01/25/2023

 2                                                DOYON   v. US

 Washington, DC, for amicus curiae Connecticut Veterans
 Legal Center. Also represented by JOHN MICHAEL GEISE,
 Elias Law Group LLP, Washington, DC.

     MAYA M. ECKSTEIN, Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP, Rich-
 mond, VA, for amicus curiae Protect Our Defenders. Also
 represented by JEFFREY PIERCE LAMBERSON; KEVIN
 EDWARD GAUNT, Washington, DC.

     ALEC UMBERTO GHEZZI, Veterans’ Voice of America, Sil-
 ver Spring, MD, for amicus curiae Vietnam Veterans of
 America.
                ______________________

     Before NEWMAN, LINN, and CHEN, Circuit Judges.
 CHEN, Circuit Judge.
      Plaintiff-Appellant Robert Doyon petitioned the Board
 for the Correction of Naval Records (BCNR) to correct his
 military service records to state that he was discharged
 from the Navy for service-connected post-traumatic stress
 disorder (PTSD) rather than a “personality disorder.” Af-
 ter the BCNR denied his petition, Doyon brought suit in
 the Court of Federal Claims (Claims Court), seeking disa-
 bility retirement payment for service-connected PTSD pur-
 suant to 10 U.S.C. § 1201 and alleging that the BCNR
 failed to review his application with “liberal consideration.”
 The government moved for judgment on the administrative
 record, which the Claims Court granted. The court rea-
 soned that the “liberal consideration” standard does not ap-
 ply to the type of correction Mr. Doyon requested.
     Because Mr. Doyon challenges the correctness of the
 narrative reason for his discharge, as stated in his military
 records, and because both 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) and a De-
 partment of Defense memorandum (Kurta Memo) require
 liberal consideration for such correction requests, the
 Claims Court erred in holding that the liberal
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63     Page: 3    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                               3

 consideration standard does not apply to Mr. Doyon’s peti-
 tion. Accordingly, we vacate the Claims Court’s decision
 granting judgment on the administrative record in favor of
 the government and remand with instructions to afford Mr.
 Doyon’s application liberal consideration.
                        BACKGROUND
            I. Statutory and Regulatory Background
       Congress created a statutory framework of administra-
 tive boards to adjudicate petitions by current or former mil-
 itary service members to correct their military records.
 10 U.S.C. § 1552. Congress authorized the Secretaries of
 military departments, acting through such administrative
 boards for each department, to “correct any military rec-
 ord” when “necessary to correct an error or remove an in-
 justice.” Id. § 1552(a)(1); see also 32 C.F.R. § 723.2
 (establishing the BCNR). A service member who believes
 he was erroneously denied disability retirement due to er-
 rors in his military records may petition the BCNR for cor-
 rection of his military record. See Chambers v. United
 States, 417 F.3d 1218, 1225 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (explaining
 that “where the service member was released from service
 without a [retirement] board hearing and subsequently
 files a claim for disability retirement before a military cor-
 rection board, the Correction Board becomes the first
 proper board to act (or to be asked to act) on the matter
 . . . . [and a] Correction Board proceeding becomes a man-
 datory remedy” (internal quotation marks and citation
 omitted)). There is no dispute that the BCNR has the
 power to make corrections granting or amending military
 disability retirement. Appellant’s Br. 34; Appellee’s Br. 20.
     In 2014, Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel issued guid-
 ance to correction boards regarding claims seeking to up-
 grade a service member’s discharge characterization based
 on previously unrecognized PTSD. J.A. 1232–35 (Hagel
 Memo). The Hagel Memo noted that, because “PTSD was
 not recognized as a diagnosis at the time of service” for
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 4   Filed: 01/25/2023

 4                                              DOYON   v. US

 Vietnam veterans and because PTSD diagnoses often
 “were not made until decades after service was completed,”
 many veterans’ records lack sufficient “substantive infor-
 mation” concerning PTSD. J.A. 1232. The Hagel Memo
 therefore instructed correction boards to give liberal con-
 sideration to “petitions for changes in characterization of
 service” when the former service member’s records “docu-
 ment one or more symptoms” of PTSD. Id. “Characteriza-
 tion of service” is a term of art that appears on military
 discharge paperwork and that reflects the circumstances of
 a veteran’s separation from military service—i.e., “Honor-
 able,” “General (Under Honorable Conditions),” and “Un-
 der Other Than Honorable Conditions.” See Dep’t of
 Defense (DoD) Instruction 1332.14 at Encl. 4, ¶ 3(b)(2).
      Then, on August 25, 2017, Undersecretary of Defense
 Anthony Kurta issued another memorandum, titled “Clar-
 ifying Guidance to Military Discharge Review Boards and
 Boards for Correction Military/Naval Records Considering
 Requests by Veterans for Modification of their Discharge
 Due to Mental Health Conditions; Traumatic Brain Injury;
 Sexual Assault; or Sexual Harassment” (Kurta Memo), to
 expand on the Hagel Memo and to promote “greater uni-
 formity amongst the review boards.” J.A. 1940; see also
 J.A. 1943 ¶ 22. Unlike the Hagel Memo, which was focused
 on “petitions for changes in characterization of service”—
 e.g., changing a service member’s discharge from dishonor-
 able or less-than-honorable to honorable, J.A. 1234, the
 Kurta Memo’s guidance is not limited to discharge charac-
 terization upgrades and applies to “any petition seeking
 discharge relief including requests to change the narrative
 reason, re-enlistment codes, and upgrades from General to
 Honorable characterizations,” J.A. 1943 ¶ 24.
      Like the Hagel Memo, the Kurta Memo explains that
 the more lenient liberal consideration evidentiary standard
 is appropriate for PTSD-related correction claims because
 “[i]t is unreasonable to expect the same level of proof for
 injustices committed years ago when . . . PTSD . . . w[as]
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63      Page: 5    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                              5

 far less understood than [it is] today.” J.A. 1943–44
 ¶ 26(a), (b), (k). Evidence relevant to a PTSD-related peti-
 tion may include “changes in behavior, . . . deterioration in
 work performance; inability of the individual to conform
 their behavior to the expectations of the military environ-
 ment; substance abuse; episodes of depression, panic at-
 tacks, or anxiety” and more. J.A. 1941 ¶ 5. Additionally,
 the “veteran’s testimony alone” may establish the existence
 of PTSD, and a service-connection determination by the VA
 is “persuasive evidence” that PTSD existed during military
 service. J.A. 1942 ¶¶ 13–14. There is no dispute that the
 Hagel and Kurta Memos’ guidance is binding on the BCNR.
 See Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1177 (Fed. Cir.
 2005) (“[T]he military is bound to follow its own procedural
 regulations should it choose to promulgate them.”).
     Congress subsequently codified the liberal considera-
 tion standard into the BCNR’s authorizing statute on De-
 cember 12, 2017, when it amended 10 U.S.C. § 1552 to add
 sub-section (h). See National Defense Authorization Act
 for Fiscal Year 2018, Pub. L. No. 115-91 § 520, 131 Stat.
 1283, 1379, 1380 (2017). Section 1552(h) imposed a re-
 quirement on correction boards to review claims involving
 PTSD with liberal consideration. See 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h).
     Under controlling naval regulations at the time of Mr.
 Doyon’s discharge, service members could be “separated
 [from military service], by reason of unsuitability, with an
 honorable or general discharge” for, among other reasons,
 character and behavioral disorders “[a]s determined by
 medical authority.” J.A. 1834 (Bureau of Naval Personnel
 Manual—Part C) § 10310(1), (2)(e). To discharge a service
 member as “unsuitable” due to a personality disorder, “the
 disorder [must be] of such severity as to render the member
 incapable of serving adequately.” Id. § 10310(4). Moreo-
 ver, controlling DoD regulations at the time of Mr. Doyon’s
 discharge distinguished personality disorders, such as
 character and behavioral disorders, from physical disabili-
 ties, such as psychoses and psychoneuroses (then-
Case: 21-2095      Document: 63    Page: 6   Filed: 01/25/2023

 6                                                 DOYON   v. US

 analogues to PTSD). See DoD Directive 1332.18, Encl. 2,
 § XIV ¶ 3(a) (Sept. 9, 1968) (J.A. 1190) (specifying that
 “[c]haracter and behavior disorders may render an individ-
 ual unsuitable rather than unfit because of physical disa-
 bility” (emphasis added)); see also id., Encl. 1 ¶ E
 (J.A. 1164) (defining “physical disability” as including
 “mental disease [except] behavior disorders, personality
 disorders, and primary mental deficiency”).
      Military disability retirement, on the other hand, is
 governed by 10 U.S.C. § 1201, which provides: “[U]pon the
 Secretary’s determination that a service member is ‘unfit
 to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank,
 or rating because of physical disability incurred while en-
 titled to basic pay,’ the service member may retire for dis-
 ability.” See Chambers, 417 F.3d at 1223, 1224 (quoting
 10 U.S.C. § 1201(a)); see also DoD Directive 1332.18
 § V(A)(1) (Sept. 9, 1968) (J.A. 1153) (setting forth “Stand-
 ards of Unfitness by Reason of Physical Disability”). A sep-
 arate Physical Examination Board “determines a service
 member’s fitness for duty and entitlement to disability re-
 tirement once a Medical Examination Board . . . finds the
 soldier does not meet the [military department’s] stand-
 ards for retention under its regulations.” See Chambers,
 417 F.3d at 1225 n.2. So while some service members
 might be discharged from military service on “unsuitabil-
 ity” grounds, other service members may instead retire
 from service due to disability if the Secretary of their re-
 spective military department determines that they are “un-
 fit” for duty.
                II. Mr. Doyon’s Military Service
     Mr. Doyon served in the Navy from March 17, 1966, to
 November 21, 1968. J.A. 1102; J.A. 1136. During the Vi-
 etnam War, Mr. Doyon was assigned to the U.S.S. Intrepid,
 where he attained the rank of Airman and received several
 medals and commendations, including the Vietnam Service
 Medal (One Bronze Star), the Vietnam Campaign Medal,
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63      Page: 7    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                                7

 and the National Defense Service Medal. J.A. 1240–46;
 J.A. 1969.
     On July 29, 1967, a rocket misfired on the deck of the
 U.S.S. Forrestal, causing an explosion and fire that re-
 sulted in more than 130 deaths and 160 injuries.
 J.A. 1001–02 ¶ 2; J.A. 1251–55. From the deck of the In-
 trepid, Mr. Doyon witnessed the immediate aftermath of
 the explosion and fire. Id. On October 23, 1967, four mem-
 bers of the Intrepid went Absent Without Leave (AWOL).
 J.A. 1007–08 ¶ 24; J.A. 1255. Mr. Doyon alleges that be-
 cause he was friendly with two of the deserters, he was ver-
 bally and physically harassed and threatened by his
 shipmates. J.A. 1007–08 ¶ 24; J.A. 1577 ¶ 12. In April
 1968, Mr. Doyon’s parents wrote to Senator Edward Ken-
 nedy about his mental health, and Senator Kennedy, in
 turn, wrote to the commanding officer of the Intrepid.
 J.A. 1008 ¶ 25. The commanding officer subsequently rep-
 rimanded Mr. Doyon for going outside of the chain of com-
 mand. J.A. 1254.
     In May 1968, Mr. Doyon went AWOL for two days.
 J.A. 1246; J.A. 1256; J.A. 1268–69. Upon his return to the
 Intrepid, Mr. Doyon was referred to the ship’s sick bay be-
 cause of his “inability to get along with his peers, his recent
 mental agitation and deteriorating work habits, and his ex-
 pression of admiration for several of 1967’s famous four de-
 serters.” J.A. 1009 ¶ 28. Once admitted to sick bay, he was
 sedated with Thorazine, which Mr. Doyon contends is an
 antipsychotic. J.A. 1009 ¶ 28; J.A. 1115; see also J.A. 1258.
 On August 16, 1968, Mr. Doyon was transferred to Naval
 Base Subic Bay for further evaluation. J.A. 1009 ¶ 29.
 While at Subic Bay, a medical evaluation diagnosed Mr.
 Doyon with “passive aggressive personality disorder.” J.A.
 1009 ¶ 30.
     On August 31, 1968, Mr. Doyon returned to the In-
 trepid. J.A. 1010 ¶ 32. Less than a month later, Mr. Doyon
 witnessed a fatal plane crash, including dismemberment of
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 8    Filed: 01/25/2023

 8                                               DOYON   v. US

 a fellow Airman, while he was standing duty at a video re-
 cording console.      J.A. 1010–11 ¶ 36; J.A. 1256–57.
 Mr. Doyon was then spent several hours replaying video
 recordings of the crash for Air Department and Incident
 Report Personnel. J.A. 1011 ¶ 37; J.A. 1257.
     On September 26, 1968, the commanding officer of the
 Intrepid recommended the Navy separate Mr. Doyon from
 military service for unsuitability, citing his diagnosis of
 passive-aggressive personality disorder. J.A. 1279. A sub-
 sequent psychiatric evaluation conducted on October 28,
 1968, changed Mr. Doyon’s diagnosis to “Emotionally Un-
 stable Personality #3210, with noted paranoid trait in his
 personality.” J.A. 1002 ¶ 4; J.A. 1115; J.A. 1052.
      On November 21, 1968, Mr. Doyon was discharged
 from the Navy. J.A. 1134. The “Characterization of Ser-
 vice” field on Mr. Doyon’s DD-214 form 1 characterized his
 discharge as “Honorable,” and the “Reason and Authority”
 field on his DD-214 form contained a separation code indi-
 cating that he was discharged for unsuitability due to a
 personality disorder. 2 See J.A. 1102. Accordingly, Mr.

     1   Mr. Doyon’s DD-214 form is entitled “Armed Forces
 of the United States Report of Transfer or Dis-
 charge.” J.A. 1102. A DD-214 form provides “a clear, con-
 cise summary of each discrete period of active
 service . . . . [and] includes relevant data regarding the
 [service] member’s service and the circumstances of termi-
 nation” and serves as “an authoritative source of personnel
 information for administrative purposes, and for making
 enlistment or reenlistment eligibility determina-
 tions.” DoD Instruction 1336.01 § 1.2(d)(1), (2) (Feb. 17,
 2022).
     2   The “BUPERS MANUAL ART. C-10310” separa-
 tion code in the “Reason and Authority” field of Mr. Doyon’s
Case: 21-2095      Document: 63    Page: 9    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                               9

 Doyon was not eligible to receive a military disability re-
 tirement.
                 III. Administrative Proceedings
     In December 2013, Mr. Doyon filed an application for
 disability compensation with the Department of Veterans
 Affairs (VA) for PTSD. J.A. 1404. In June 2014, a VA psy-
 chiatrist diagnosed Mr. Doyon with PTSD and opined that
 he had experienced in-service stressors, including witness-
 ing the fatal plane crash and the Forestall fire.
 J.A. 1112–20. The VA subsequently granted Mr. Doyon’s
 application for disability compensation due to PTSD and
 assigned a 50-percent disability rating, effective December
 9, 2013. J.A. 1136–39. On November 18, 2015, based on a
 PTSD diagnosis by a second VA psychiatrist, the VA
 granted Mr. Doyon’s claim for an increased disability rat-
 ing and assigned a 70-percent disability rating, effective
 August 27, 2015. J.A. 1406–12; J.A. 1141–44.
     In September 2017, Mr. Doyon sought correction of his
 military records with the BCNR. J.A. 1068–70. Specifi-
 cally, Mr. Doyon requested that the BCNR correct the sep-
 aration code indicating the narrative reason for his
 discharge on his DD-214 form to: (1) reflect that he was
 medically retired due to physical disability; (2) reflect that
 he was unfit and medically retired for psychoses or psycho-
 neuroses (then-analogues to PTSD); and (3) remove any
 reference to unsuitability due to personality disorder. 3
 J.A. 1068; see also J.A. 1094 (supporting brief requesting

 DD-214 corresponds to “Discharge of Enlisted Personnel by
 Reason of Unsuitability.” See J.A. 1102; J.A. 1834.
     3   The narrative reason for Mr. Doyon’s discharge is
 a separation code, and he seeks to correct the narrative rea-
 son by changing to a different separation code, one neces-
 sary for military disability retirement. See J.A. 1102;
 J.A. 1068.
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 10   Filed: 01/25/2023

 10                                              DOYON   v. US

 same). Mr. Doyon also argued that his request was entitled
 to liberal consideration pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552.
 J.A. 1074.
     To support his application, Mr. Doyon submitted a psy-
 chiatric evaluation report from Dr. Ted R. Greenzang, who
 opined that (i) Mr. Doyon experienced manifestations of
 PTSD at the time of his military discharge from the mili-
 tary, (ii) his medical history was inconsistent with a per-
 sonality disorder diagnosis, and (iii) his separation from
 the Navy for unsuitability was “not an appropriate disposi-
 tion.” J.A. 1423–39. The BCNR then sought an advisory
 opinion from Secretary of the Navy Council of Review
 Boards (CORB), J.A. 1067, and a CORB medical advisor
 responded that the evidence did not support a determina-
 tion that Mr. Doyon had a PTSD-based physical disability,
 J.A. 1052–57. The medical advisor therefore concluded
 that there was insufficient evidence to support an unfitness
 determination but noted that reconsideration would be ap-
 propriate “[s]hould further evidence surface supporting un-
 fitness or a disability retirement.” J.A. 1056. Mr. Doyon
 responded to that advisory opinion and submitted a re-
 sponsive report from Dr. Greenzang. J.A. 1803–12;
 J.A. 1815–20.
     On November 20, 2018, the BCNR denied Mr. Doyon’s
 petition. J.A. 1049–51. The BCNR “substantially con-
 curred” with the advisory opinion, concluding that the evi-
 dentiary record did not warrant a change to Mr. Doyon’s
 military record. J.A. 1050. As to Dr. Greenzang’s opinion
 and Mr. Doyon’s recent VA ratings for his PTSD condition,
 the BCNR found that “these findings were made too distant
 in time from 1968 to be probative of [Mr. Doyon’s] fitness
 for continued naval service in 1968” and there was “more
 than enough evidence [in Mr. Doyon’s military record] of
 behavior consistent with a personality disorder to support
 the diagnosis made in 1968.” Id.
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63     Page: 11     Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                               11

                 IV. Claims Court Proceeding
      On December 27, 2019, Mr. Doyon initiated a military
 pay action before the Claims Court, challenging the
 BCNR’s denial of his request to correct his military records
 to reflect that he was unfit for duty and medically retired
 for psychosis or psychoneuroses associated with PTSD.
 Doyon v. United States, No. 19-1964C, 2021 WL 120923,
 at *1 (Fed. Cl. Jan. 13, 2021). As relief, Mr. Doyon sought
 (i) an order that his military records be corrected, (ii) mili-
 tary disability retirement pay, and (iii) other pay. Id. The
 government moved to dismiss Mr. Doyon’s complaint for
 lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a
 claim upon which relief can be granted. Id. The parties
 also filed cross-motions for judgment upon the administra-
 tive record. Id. Mr. Doyon argued that the BCNR erred by
 failing to review his application with liberal consideration
 pursuant to 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) and the Kurta Memo.
 J.A. 2134–35; J.A. 2304–05; J.A. 2326. The government
 argued that the Kurta Memo does not mandate liberal con-
 sideration under the circumstances because the memo is
 limited to misconduct-based upgrades or modifications to a
 service member’s characterization of service (characteriza-
 tion upgrades)—e.g., changing a service member’s dis-
 charge from dishonorable or less-than-honorable to
 honorable. J.A. 2212. The government did not substan-
 tively respond to Mr. Doyon’s § 1552(h) arguments. See
 J.A. 2214.
     In its decision, the Claims Court concluded that the
 Kurta Memo is not limited to misconduct-based discharge
 upgrades or modifications but instead requires the BCNR
 to also afford liberal consideration to requests seeking to
 correct the narrative reason for a service member’s dis-
 charge. See Doyon, 2021 WL 120923, at *10. The court
 found, however, that the BCNR did not err by not applying
 liberal consideration to Mr. Doyon’s case because he sought
 “a determination regarding his fitness for duty in 1968,”
 which is a necessary finding for military disability
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 12    Filed: 01/25/2023

 12                                               DOYON   v. US

 retirement, rather than “challeng[ing] the narrative reason
 for his discharge” from the Navy for unsuitability based on
 a personality disorder. Id.; see also 10 U.S.C. § 1201(a).
     Mr. Doyon timely appealed to this court. We have ju-
 risdiction over an appeal from a final decision of the Claims
 Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1295(a)(3).
                         DISCUSSION
                   I. Standard of Review
     Service members who are dissatisfied with the decision
 of the BCNR may seek judicial review, Mitchell v. United
 States, 930 F.2d 893, 896 (Fed. Cir. 1991), but a court may
 only set aside the BCNR’s decision if it was “arbitrary or
 capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or other-
 wise not in accordance with law”—i.e., “essentially the
 standard under which administrative agency decisions are
 reviewed,” Fisher, 402 F.3d at 1180. “We review a decision
 of the Court of Federal Claims granting or denying a mo-
 tion for judgment on the administrative record without def-
 erence.” Barnick v. United States, 591 F.3d 1372, 1377
 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (citing Chambers, 417 F.3d at 1227). We
 therefore apply “the same standard of review as the trial
 court” and will not disturb the BCNR’s decision unless it is
 “arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by
 substantial evidence.” Id.
                  II. Liberal Consideration
      Mr. Doyon’s application asked the BCNR to change the
 narrative reason for his discharge indicated on his DD-214
 form from unsuitability due to personality disorder to a
 PTSD-related physical disability so that he would be eligi-
 ble for disability retirement payments. Appellant’s Br. 40–
 41; J.A. 1068; J.A. 1073, 1094. The only dispute is whether
 the BCNR was required to apply a “liberal consideration”
 standard to Mr. Doyon’s application pursuant to either the
 Kurta Memo or 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h). We consider each the-
 ory separately.
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63      Page: 13     Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                               13

                       A. Kurta Memo
      Mr. Doyon argues that the BCNR should have given
 liberal consideration, in view of the Kurta Memo, to his ap-
 plication to correct the narrative reason on his DD-214
 form. Appellant’s Br. 39–49. The government again ar-
 gues that the Kurta Memo is limited to characterization
 upgrades and does not encompass changing a narrative
 reason for discharge to medical disability retirement. Ap-
 pellee’s Br. 32–35. We agree with the Claims Court that
 the Kurta Memo is not limited to characterization up-
 grades but “requires that the BCNR give ‘liberal consider-
 ation’ to applications seeking discharge relief that
 challenge the narrative reason for a military discharge.”
 Doyon, 2021 WL 120923, at *10. However, we disagree
 with the Claims Court’s finding that Mr. Doyon is not chal-
 lenging the reason for his discharge. Mr. Doyon requested
 the BCNR change the narrative reason on his DD-214 form
 to reflect that he was discharged due to physical disability
 (i.e., PTSD) rather than personality disorder. Mr. Doyon
 thus challenged his narrative reason for discharge, and
 such challenge is entitled to liberal consideration under the
 Kurta Memo.
     To ensure “greater uniformity amongst the review
 boards,” the Kurta Memo instructs that liberal considera-
 tion (1) “will be given” to a veteran’s application for dis-
 charge relief “based in whole or in part on matters relating
 to mental health conditions, including PTSD”; and (2) is
 not limited to characterization upgrades (e.g., from Under
 Other Than Honorable Condition to Honorable Discharge)
 but “appl[ies] to any petition seeking discharge relief includ-
 ing requests to change the narrative reason, re-enlistment
 codes, and upgrades from General to Honorable character-
 izations.” J.A. 1940; J.A. 1941 ¶ 3; J.A. 1943 ¶ 24 (empha-
 sis added); see also J.A. 1943 ¶ 20 (defining “discharge” as
 including “the characterization, narrative reason, separa-
 tion code, and re-enlistment code” (emphasis added)). In
 other words, the narrative reason for discharge is a
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63      Page: 14    Filed: 01/25/2023

 14                                               DOYON   v. US

 distinct, recognized basis for correction, separate and apart
 from upgrading or modifying a service member’s character-
 ization of service, and is entitled to liberal consideration.
 See also LaBonte v. United States, 43 F.4th 1357, 1374
 (Fed. Cir. 2022) (noting that “[t]he Kurta Memo . . .
 make[s] clear that this liberal consideration applies not
 only to upgrades to the character of a discharge, but also to
 requests for changes to the narrative reason for separation
 on a veteran’s DD-214”).
     Moreover, the Kurta Memo expressly authorizes the
 BCNR to analyze evidence related to the correctness of the
 narrative reason for discharge: “Evidence that may rea-
 sonably support more than one diagnosis or a change in di-
 agnosis, particularly where the diagnosis is listed as the
 narrative reason for discharge, will be liberally construed
 as warranting a change in narrative reason to ‘Secretarial
 Authority,’ ‘Condition not a disability,’ or another appropri-
 ate basis.” J.A. 1942–43 ¶ 17 (emphasis added); see also
 J.A. 1942 ¶¶ 13–14 (explaining that “[a] diagnosis made by
 a licensed psychiatrist or psychologist that the condition
 existed during military service will receive liberal consid-
 eration” and that a determination made by the VA should
 be considered “persuasive evidence” that PTSD existed
 during military service). The memo further explains that
 “liberal consideration” is the appropriate evidentiary bur-
 den under these circumstances because “[i]t is unreasona-
 ble to expect the same level of proof for injustices
 committed years ago when” PTSD was “far less understood
 than [it is] today.” J.A. 1943 ¶ 26. In sum, a veteran’s chal-
 lenge to the recorded narrative reason for discharge neces-
 sarily encompasses the factual determinations necessary
 to correct or maintain the narrative reason.
     Here, Mr. Doyon contends that the narrative reason for
 his discharge, as represented in his DD-214 form, should
 be corrected from the “BUPERSMAN Art. C-10310, 265”
 separation code (i.e., unsuitability due to personality disor-
 der) to the “BUPERSMAN C-10305” separation code (i.e.,
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 15    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                             15

 separation due to physical disability).         Appellant’s
 Br. 40–41; J.A. 1001 (Appellant’s complaint to the Claims
 Court); see also J.A. 1068 (Appellant’s application to the
 BCNR); J.A. 1073, 1094 (Appellant’s briefing to the
 BCNR); J.A. 1969 (Appellant’s DD-214 form); J.A. 1830
 (description for BUPERSMAN C-10305). Regardless of
 whether an unfitness determination is necessary for an ul-
 timate determination of whether Mr. Doyon was entitled to
 military disability retirement, see Doyon, 2021 WL 120923,
 at *10, Mr. Doyon’s application to the BCNR is nonetheless
 a challenge to the accuracy of the narrative reason listed
 on his DD-214 form. As such, the Kurta Memo requires
 that the BCNR review Mr. Doyon’s application with liberal
 consideration.
     Because the Claims Court mischaracterized Mr.
 Doyon’s claim as not challenging the narrative reason for
 his discharge and, thus, determined that liberal considera-
 tion was not required, vacatur is warranted. We offer no
 opinion as to whether liberal consideration would entitle
 Mr. Doyon to a correction of his DD-214 form or to disabil-
 ity retirement. See discussion infra § III. The BCNR le-
 gally erred by reviewing the merits of Mr. Doyon’s
 application without giving it liberal consideration.
                   B. 10 U.S.C. § 1552(H)
     Mr. Doyon separately argues that 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)
 requires that the BCNR give liberal consideration to his
 correction request because his application is a “claim under
 [§ 1552] for review of a discharge,” “based in whole or in
 part on matters related to [PTSD],” and his service-con-
 nected PTSD “contributed to the circumstances resulting
 in [his] discharge.”      Appellant’s Br. 32–33 (quoting
 § 1552(h)(1), (2)(B)). The government disagrees, arguing
 that § 1552(h) cannot be retroactively applied to his appli-
 cation and that it is substantively inapplicable to the same.
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63      Page: 16    Filed: 01/25/2023

 16                                               DOYON   v. US

 We disagree with the government and address each objec-
 tion separately. 4
                               1
     The government argues that Mr. Doyon failed to
 demonstrate that § 1552(h), which was enacted after Mr.
 Doyon filed his application to the BCNR, retroactively ap-
 plied to his application. Appellee’s Br. 20. Although the
 government’s argument was not presented to the Claims

      4   The government also asserts that Mr. Doyon did
 not preserve his § 1552(h)-based arguments by failing to
 present it to the BCNR. Appellant’s Br. 18–20. Even if
 that were the case, the government did not object below
 when Mr. Doyon repeatedly argued to the Claims Court
 that § 1552(h)(2)(B) required the BCNR to review his ap-
 plication with liberal consideration.         J.A. 2134–35;
 J.A. 2304–05; J.A. 2326 & n.1. Accordingly, the govern-
 ment forfeited its preservation argument. See In re Google
 Tech. Holdings LLC, 980 F.3d 858, 862 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
 Moreover, we exercise our discretion to consider the inter-
 pretation of § 1552(h) because Mr. Doyon pressed his
 § 1552(h)-based argument to the Claims Court and the par-
 ties’ cross-motions for judgment based on the administra-
 tive record suggest that the factual record needs no further
 development. See Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U.S. 106, 121
 (1976) (“The matter of what questions may be taken up and
 resolved for the first time on appeal is one left primarily to
 the discretion of the courts of appeals, to be exercised on
 the facts of individual cases.”); see also White v. U.S. Dep’t
 of the Army, 720 F.2d 209, 211 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“Exercise
 of that discretion is particularly appropriate where . . . the
 question is a purely legal one, the resolution of which would
 not be aided by any further factual development. . . . [and
 the agency] has fully stated its position and reasoning on
 this issue.”).
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 17    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                             17

 Court—despite argument by Mr. Doyon regarding
 § 1552(h)—we nonetheless conclude that § 1552(h) applies
 to the BCNR’s decision on Mr. Doyon’s application.
      “A statute does not operate ‘retrospectively’ merely be-
 cause it is applied in a case arising from conduct antedat-
 ing the statute’s enactment.” Landgraf v. USI Film Prods.,
 511 U.S. 244, 265, 269 (1994). To determine whether a
 “statute should be applied to a case that originated before
 the statute was passed”—i.e., whether applying the statute
 would have improper “retroactive effect”—the question is
 “whether the new provision attaches new legal conse-
 quences to events completed before its enactment.” Rodri-
 guez v. Peake, 511 F.3d 1147, 1152–53 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
 (citing Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 269–70).
      We typically examine three factors to determine
 whether a statute would have retroactive effect:
 “(1) whether it would impair rights possessed by a party
 when he acted, (2) whether it would increase a party’s lia-
 bility for past conduct, or (3) whether it would impose new
 duties with respect to already completed transactions.” Id.
 at 1153. Here, 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) prescribes the circum-
 stances in which the BCNR must apply liberal considera-
 tion. It does not impair Mr. Doyon’s rights, increase his
 liability for past conduct, or impose any new duties on him.
 Likewise, § 1552(h) does not impair the rights of, increase
 the liability of, or impose new legal consequences on the
 government because the Kurta Memo already required the
 BCNR to review “any petition seeking discharge relief”
 with liberal consideration. See Rodriguez v. Peake, 511
 F.3d at 1152–53; see also J.A. 1943. As such, the BCNR
 was obligated to “apply the law in effect at the time it ren-
 ders its decision, unless doing so would result in manifest
 injustice or there is statutory direction or legislative his-
 tory to the contrary.” See Bradley v. Sch. Bd. of Richmond,
 416 U.S. 696, 711 (1974); see also Landgraf, 511 U.S. at 278
 (explaining that Bradley is “consistent with a presumption
 against statutory retroactivity”). And although the Claims
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63      Page: 18    Filed: 01/25/2023

 18                                                 DOYON   v. US

 Court recognized that Congress codified the liberal consid-
 eration standard with respect to reviewing “the circum-
 stances resulting in the discharge,” Doyon, 2021 WL
 120923, at *3 (quoting 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2)(B)), the court
 did not apply § 1552(h), which was “in effect at the time it
 render[ed] its decision,” nor explain its decision not to ap-
 ply § 1552(h), cf. Bradley, 416 U.S. at 711. We therefore
 hold that the BCNR and Claims Court erred by failing to
 consider the effect of § 1552(h) on Mr. Doyon’s application.
                                2
     The government also argues that the plain meaning of
 “review of a discharge or dismissal” in 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)
 does not include review of an honorable discharge for rea-
 sons other than misconduct. Appellee’s Br. 21. We disa-
 gree.
     Section 1552(h) codified the liberal consideration
 standard prescribed by the Kurta Memo. Section 1552(h)
 states in full:
      (h)(1) This subsection applies to a former member
      of the armed forces whose claim under this section
      for review of a discharge or dismissal is based in
      whole or in part on matters relating to post-trau-
      matic stress disorder or traumatic brain injury as
      supporting rationale, or as justification for priority
      consideration, and whose post-traumatic stress dis-
      order or traumatic brain injury is related to combat
      or military sexual trauma, as determined by the
      Secretary concerned.
      (2) In the case of a claimant described in para-
      graph (1), a board established under subsec-
      tion (a)(1) shall—
          (A) review medical evidence of the Secre-
          tary of Veterans Affairs or a civilian health
          care provider that is presented by the
          claimant; and
Case: 21-2095     Document: 63      Page: 19    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                              19

          (B) review the claim with liberal considera-
          tion to the claimant that post-traumatic
          stress disorder or traumatic brain injury
          potentially contributed to the circum-
          stances resulting in the discharge or dismis-
          sal or to the original characterization of the
          claimant’s discharge or dismissal.
 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h) (emphases added). In short, § 1552(h)
 applies to all “former member[s] of the armed forces whose
 claim under this section for review of a discharge or dismis-
 sal is based in whole or in part on matters relating to post-
 traumatic stress disorder.” Id. § 1552(h)(1). And the
 BCNR must review such claims “with liberal consideration
 to the claimant that post-traumatic stress disorder” (1) “po-
 tentially contributed to the circumstances resulting in the
 discharge or dismissal” or (2) potentially contributed to the
 “original characterization of the claimant’s discharge or
 dismissal.” Id. § 1552(h)(2)(B).
     There appears to be no dispute that Mr. Doyon is a “for-
 mer member of the armed forces.” See id. § 1552(h)(1). Nor
 that his claim is “based in whole or in part on matters re-
 lating to post-traumatic stress disorder” that is “related to
 combat.” Id. § 1552(h)(1); see also Doyon, 2021 WL 120923,
 at *13 (Claims Court noting that Mr. Doyon’s “PTSD diag-
 nosis is not in dispute”). Instead, the parties dispute
 whether Mr. Doyon’s application seeks a “review of a dis-
 charge or dismissal” that is entitled to liberal considera-
 tion. See Appellant’s Br. 33–38; Appellee’s Br. 21–23.
      The government argues that liberal consideration un-
 der § 1552(h) is limited only to upgrading or modifying a
 service member’s characterization of service. See Appel-
 lee’s Br. 23. However, nothing in the text of § 1552(h) lim-
 its liberal consideration for PTSD-related claims to
 characterization upgrades or any other subset of miscon-
 duct-related discharge relief regularly provided by the
 BCNR. Although not defined within the statute, the word
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 20   Filed: 01/25/2023

 20                                              DOYON   v. US

 “discharge” in § 1552(h)(1)’s “review of a discharge or dis-
 missal” language plainly refers to “severance from military
 service.” See Gumpenberger v. Wilkie, 973 F.3d 1379, 1382
 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (“A court interpreting the statute ‘pre-
 sume[s] that Congress intended to give those words their
 plain and ordinary meanings.’” (alteration in original) (ci-
 tation omitted)); see also Discharge, Black’s Law Dictionary
 (11th ed. 2019) (“8. The dismissal of a member of the armed
 services from military service.”); DoD Instruction 1332.14,
 Encl. 6, at 54 (defining “discharge as “[c]omplete severance
 from all military status gained through enlistment or in-
 duction”). Even if “discharge” may refer to characterization
 of service when the term is accompanied by a preceding
 characterization modifier, 5 such as “honorable discharge,”
 for example, the unmodified “discharge” recited in
 § 1552(h)(1) is not limited to any particular characteriza-
 tion, honorable or otherwise. Moreover, the government’s
 blanket, unsupported assertion that “discharge” has a set-
 tled meaning that is limited to a service member’s charac-
 terization of service, see Appellant’s Br. 32–33, is
 undermined by the Kurta Memo’s definition of “discharge”
 as encompassing “narrative reason, separation code, and
 re-enlistment code” in addition to “characterization,” see
 J.A. 1943 ¶ 20.
     Furthermore, the express language of the statute
 makes clear that “review of discharge or dismissal” is not
 limited to just upgrading or modifying characterization of
 service. The statute does state, as one basis for providing
 liberal consideration, a claim that PTSD potentially con-
 tributed to “the original characterization of the claimant’s

      5  See Discharge, Black’s Law Dictionary (11th ed.
 2019) (providing characterization-specific definitions for
 “administrative discharge,” “bad-conduct discharge,” “dis-
 honorable discharge,” “general discharge,” “honorable dis-
 charge,” and “undesirable discharge”).
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 21    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                             21

 discharge or dismissal.” 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2)(B). But the
 statute also states a second, broader basis for liberal con-
 sideration: whether PTSD “potentially contributed to the
 circumstances resulting in the discharge or dismissal.” Id.
 Had Congress intended to limit liberal consideration only
 to upgrading or modifying a service member’s characteri-
 zation of service, the statute would not include the altera-
 tive “circumstances resulting in the discharge” clause as an
 additional, separate ground for liberal consideration. See
 id. The government’s overly narrow reading would render
 the “circumstances resulting in the discharge or dismissal”
 clause superfluous and violate the “‘cardinal principle of
 statutory construction’ that ‘a statute ought, upon the
 whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no
 clause, sentence, or word shall be superfluous, void, or in-
 significant.’” See Gumpenberger, 973 F.3d at 1382 (citation
 omitted); see also, e.g., Lowe v. SEC, 472 U.S. 181, 207 n.53
 (1985); Antonin Scalia & Bryan A. Garner, Reading Law:
 The Interpretation of Legal Texts 174–79 (2012). Moreo-
 ver, whether the reason for Mr. Doyon’s discharge from the
 Navy was based on a misdiagnosis of personality disorder
 instead of PSTD is a question that falls within the plain
 meaning of the “circumstances resulting in the discharge,”
 to which § 1552(h)(2)(B) affords “liberal consideration.”
     Contrary to the government’s arguments, that similar
 “liberal consideration” language is found in 10 U.S.C.
 § 1553(d) does not control or limit 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h). See
 Appellee’s Br. 23. Section 1553 establishes discharge re-
 view boards (DRBs), which have the limited authority to
 “change a discharge or dismissal, or issue a new discharge.”
 10 U.S.C. § 1553(b)(1); see also 32 C.F.R. § 724.205(a)(9)
 (“The [DRB] shall have no authority to . . . [c]hange the
 reason for discharge from or to a physical disability.” (em-
 phasis added)). The BCNR’s authority is broader; it may
 “correct any military record” when “necessary to correct an
 error or remove an injustice.” 10 U.S.C. § 1552(a)(1) (em-
 phasis added). So unlike the BCNR, the scope of liberal
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63     Page: 22    Filed: 01/25/2023

 22                                               DOYON   v. US

 consideration at the DRB is circumscribed by the jurisdic-
 tion of the DRB, not by the language in § 1553(d).
     Accordingly, 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(1)’s “review of a dis-
 charge” refers to the BCNR’s power to review and correct
 records related to a former service member’s “severance
 from military service.” 6 Mr. Doyon’s DD-214 form, titled
 “Report of Transfer or Discharge,” includes a field indicat-
 ing the narrative reason for his discharge—i.e., the “Rea-
 son and Authority.” J.A. 1102. Mr. Doyon seeks to correct
 this field. J.A. 1068; see also J.A. 1094. Whether Mr.
 Doyon’s discharge was misattributed to unsuitability based
 on a personality disorder instead of unfitness based on
 PTSD-related disability plainly falls within 10 U.S.C.
 § 1552(h)’s requirement that the BCNR shall apply liberal
 consideration when reviewing whether PTSD “potentially
 contributed to the circumstances resulting in the dis-
 charge.” Thus, the BCNR erred by not reviewing Mr.

      6   After oral arguments, the government filed a letter
 pursuant to Rule 28(j) of the Federal Rules of Appellate
 Procedure, arguing that “disability retirement is not a ‘dis-
 charge’ because it is not a complete severance from all mil-
 itary status.” See Appellee’s Letter, No. 21-2095 (July 6,
 2022), ECF No. 61. Although the government purports to
 offer this argument “in response to Mr. Doyon’s argument
 that his request for a disability retirement is encompassed
 by a ‘review of a discharge or dismissal’” under 10 U.S.C.
 § 1552(h) or the Kurta Memo, id., the government never
 raised this argument to the Claims Court. See discussion
 supra note 4 (discussing the government’s forfeiture). Not-
 withstanding forfeiture, Mr. Doyon was in fact discharged
 from the Navy, and it is the recorded reason for that dis-
 charge for which he seeks review and correction, regardless
 of whether disability retirement is a complete separation
 from the military.
Case: 21-2095        Document: 63    Page: 23    Filed: 01/25/2023

 DOYON   v. US                                               23

 Doyon’s application to correct his DD-214 form with liberal
 consideration. 7
                 III. Military Disability Retirement
      Although this case is narrowly about correcting Mr.
 Doyon’s military records to reflect a discharge due to PTSD
 instead of a personality disorder, there is a larger underly-
 ing dispute about whether Mr. Doyon was unfit, rather
 than unsuitable, for service at the time of his discharge
 from the Navy. Mr. Doyon argues that once the BCNR de-
 termines that PTSD, rather than a personality disorder,
 was the basis of his discharge from the Navy, he is auto-
 matically entitled to a new separation code reflecting un-
 fitness due to physical disability, and that entitles him to
 medical retirement. See Appellant’s Br. 57–60; Appellant’s
 Reply Br. 28–29; J.A. 1068. The government disagrees, ar-
 guing that a determination that Mr. Doyon was discharged
 due to PTSD does not automatically mean that he was also
 unfit for service, which is a separate determination neces-
 sary for him to receive medical retirement. See Appellee’s
 Br. 51–53. This unfitness dispute between the parties is
 not properly before us at this stage and can be addressed,
 if necessary, on remand.
     Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Claims Court
 to instruct the BCNR to consider whether the record evi-
 dence indicates, under the “liberal consideration”

     7   Mr. Doyon also argues that the BCNR’s decision,
 even without liberal consideration, is not supported by sub-
 stantial evidence. Appellant’s Br. 48–57. Because we de-
 cide today that the BCNR applied the wrong legal standard
 in assessing Mr. Doyon’s petition, we think the better
 course is to have the BCNR apply the liberal consideration
 standard in the first instance rather than our court review
 fact findings that had been made using an incorrect legal
 standard.
Case: 21-2095    Document: 63      Page: 24   Filed: 01/25/2023

 24                                              DOYON   v. US

 standard, that PTSD-related psychoses or psychoneuroses
 “contributed to the circumstances resulting in [Mr.
 Doyon’s] discharge,” see 10 U.S.C. § 1552(h)(2), and “war-
 rant[s] a change in [the] narrative reason” for Mr. Doyon’s
 discharge from the Navy, see, e.g., J.A. 1942–43.
                        CONCLUSION
     For the foregoing reasons, the Claims Court’s decision
 is vacated. The case is remanded to the court for further
 proceedings consistent with this opinion.
                VACATED AND REMANDED
                           COSTS

 Costs to Appellant.