Yes. A veteran who receives a new medical diagnosis, particularly a mental health condition that existed during service but was not recognized at the time, can ask the military review boards to reconsider the characterization of a discharge. This is one of the most important developments in discharge review over the past decade. A diagnosis such as post-traumatic stress disorder, traumatic brain injury, or a condition connected to military sexual trauma can support a request to upgrade a discharge that was originally characterized as less than honorable, and the boards are now directed to give such conditions special weight.
The Two Boards That Review Discharges
There are two principal forums. The first is the Discharge Review Board, or DRB, which exists in each service to review the characterization and reason for discharge. The DRB generally cannot review discharges that resulted from a general court-martial, and it has a time limit measured from the date of discharge for certain types of review. The second is the Board for Correction of Military Records, known as the BCMR in most services and the Board for Correction of Naval Records in the Navy and Marine Corps. The correction boards have broader authority to correct any military record to remedy an error or injustice, and they remain available after the DRB’s window has passed. A new medical diagnosis can be presented to either forum depending on the veteran’s circumstances and timing.
Why a New Diagnosis Matters: Liberal Consideration
The reason a later diagnosis is so significant is a series of Department of Defense policy memoranda that direct the boards to apply liberal consideration to discharge upgrade requests involving mental health conditions. The Hagel memorandum first established that boards should give special consideration to PTSD and related conditions. The Kurta memorandum, issued in 2017 by the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness, expanded that guidance and clarified how PTSD, TBI, military sexual trauma, and other mental health conditions should be evaluated. The Wilkie memorandum, issued in 2018, emphasized fairness and directed boards to consider clemency and a veteran’s rehabilitation.
Under liberal consideration, the board must ask whether a mental health condition or experience such as MST may have mitigated the misconduct that led to the discharge, and whether that mitigation outweighs the misconduct. A diagnosis that was unavailable or unrecognized at the time of discharge is exactly the kind of evidence these memoranda were designed to credit, because many conditions were not diagnosed during the service member’s time in uniform.
The Kurta Questions
The Kurta guidance frames the analysis around a set of practical questions. Did the veteran have a condition or experience that may excuse or mitigate the discharge? Did that condition exist or occur during military service? Does the condition or experience actually excuse or mitigate the discharge? And did the condition or experience outweigh the discharge? A new diagnosis speaks directly to the first two questions and supports the last two by giving the board a clinical basis to connect the in-service conduct to an underlying condition. Importantly, the guidance recognizes that evidence may come from sources outside the service record, and it does not require a diagnosis to have been made during service.
Applying for Review or Correction
The mechanics depend on the forum. An application to the DRB is made on the form designated for discharge review, while an application to a correction board is made on the form used for record correction. The veteran submits the application with supporting evidence: the new diagnosis from a qualified provider, treatment records, a narrative linking the condition to the period and conduct in question, and any statements that corroborate the in-service stressor or symptoms. Because liberal consideration governs, the veteran does not need to prove the case to a certainty; the board weighs the evidence with the thumb on the scale that the memoranda require for qualifying conditions.
Reapplying and Requesting Reconsideration After a Denial
A prior denial does not end the matter. If a correction board denies an application, the veteran may request reconsideration, typically by submitting new evidence that was not previously considered. A fresh diagnosis is precisely the kind of new evidence that can support reconsideration. Just as significant, veterans whose earlier applications were denied before the liberal consideration memoranda took effect, or who were not given the benefit of that guidance, may reapply and have the new application evaluated under the current standards. When a veteran reapplies, the board is to make an entirely new decision and is not to hold the prior denial against the applicant. This means a veteran who was turned down years ago, before PTSD or MST guidance existed, can come back with a new diagnosis and receive a genuinely fresh review.
Practical Steps to Strengthen the Request
A strong submission does more than attach a diagnosis. It explains the timeline, showing that the symptoms or the condition were present during service even if undiagnosed then. It connects the condition to the specific misconduct, explaining how the symptoms contributed to the behavior that led to separation. It documents treatment and, where possible, includes a clinician’s opinion addressing the nexus between the condition and the conduct. And it asks the board explicitly to apply liberal consideration and the Kurta and Wilkie guidance. Many veterans seek help from a veterans service organization, a legal clinic, or counsel experienced in discharge upgrades, because a well-framed application aligned with the governing memoranda substantially improves the odds.
The Bottom Line
A new medical diagnosis is one of the most effective bases for seeking a discharge upgrade or reconsideration. The DRB and the correction boards both have authority to act, the liberal consideration memoranda direct them to give qualifying mental health conditions significant weight, and a prior denial is not a permanent bar. A veteran who develops or finally receives a diagnosis after separation has a recognized and increasingly traveled path to ask the military to reconsider how that service was characterized.
Disclaimer
This article is provided strictly for general educational and informational purposes. It is intended to explain how the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), the Rules for Courts-Martial, the Military Rules of Evidence, and related military administrative processes work as a matter of public legal education. It does not constitute legal advice, a legal opinion, or a recommendation about any particular case, and it is not a substitute for advice from a qualified military defense attorney who can evaluate the specific facts and command, service, and jurisdictional circumstances involved.
Reading this article, or contacting any website on which it appears, does not create an attorney-client relationship between the reader and any law firm, attorney, or author. Every court-martial, nonjudicial punishment action, administrative separation, and security-clearance matter turns on its own facts, the charged articles, the convening authority, the service branch, and the evidence, and outcomes vary widely from one case to another.
Military law also changes over time. The Military Justice Act of 2016 (effective January 1, 2019) and subsequent National Defense Authorization Acts renumbered and rewrote many punitive articles, revised the Article 32 preliminary hearing, and altered sentencing, clemency, and appellate procedures. Statutes, regulations, executive orders, the Manual for Courts-Martial, and decisions of the service Courts of Criminal Appeals and the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces may have been amended, superseded, or reinterpreted after this article was written, and article numbers or procedures cited here may have changed.
For these reasons, no reader should act or decline to act based on this content without first consulting a licensed attorney experienced in military justice about their own situation. The author and publisher make no warranty, express or implied, as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, or current applicability of the information provided, and disclaim any liability for any action taken or not taken in reliance on it. If you are facing investigation, charges, or an adverse administrative action, time limits may apply, and you should seek qualified counsel promptly.