1. “Whether the [Board for Correction of Naval Records] erred by failing to give ‘liberal consideration’ to Mr. Bee’s petition seeking discharge relief related to his service-connected” posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and traumatic brain injury (TBI).”
2. “Whether the BCNR erred by failing to properly apply the fitness standard, which requires relating the nature and degree of Mr. Bee’s TBI and PTSD related disabilities to the requirements and duties expected of a service member in his office, grade, rank, and rating.”
3. “Whether the BCNR’s decision denying Mr. Bee’s petition is otherwise arbitrary and capricious and lacks substantial evidence.”
1. “We now turn to whether the BCNR failed to apply liberal consideration to Mr. Bee’s petition. We determine that it did. Here, there is no statement, explicit or implied, indicating that the BCNR applied a lenient evidentiary standard in its 2023 Decision.”
2. “The BCNR’s reasoning is legally erroneous. Mr. Bee’s burden to show he was unfit for duty in order to receive relief from the BCNR does not relieve the BCNR of properly applying the legal standard for fitness determinations under [SECNAVINST 1850.4E,] § 3301, which requires consideration of the ‘duties that member may reasonably be expected to perform in his or her office, grade, rank or rating.’”
3. “‘[W]e will not disturb the decision of the [Board] unless it is arbitrary, capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.’ . . . [W]e vacate the Federal Claims Court’s decision.”
