If you have applied, or are thinking about applying, to upgrade a less-than-honorable military discharge, a new federal report confirms something many veterans have long suspected: the outcome of your case may depend not only on the strength of your evidence, but also on which board reviews it and how carefully that board explains its decision. In July 2025, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), the independent watchdog arm of Congress, published a report finding that the military’s discharge upgrade boards do not uniformly apply the very guidance meant to ensure fair and consistent treatment of veterans.
Background
Service members separated without an honorable discharge often lose access to valuable medical and educational benefits and may struggle to find employment. Veterans who believe they suffered an error or injustice can apply to a post-separation review board, a Discharge Review Board, a Board for Correction of Military or Naval Records, or ultimately the Discharge Appeal Review Board, to seek an upgrade.
For cases involving mental health conditions such as PTSD, traumatic brain injury, or experiences of sexual harassment or sexual assault, the Department of Defense has directed these boards to apply what is known as “liberal consideration.” That guidance, most prominently the 2017 Kurta memorandum, recognizes that service-connected conditions may explain or mitigate the misconduct that led to a discharge, and it lays out four key questions the boards are supposed to weigh. Between January 2018 and March 2024, the boards applied liberal consideration to more than 21,000 discharge upgrade cases.
Where You Apply May Affect Your Outcome
One of the most striking findings in the report is how widely outcomes varied. Across the boards, the rate at which upgrades were granted ranged from 18 percent to 49 percent. In other words, two veterans with comparable circumstances could see very different results depending on which board reviewed their application. The report found that the boards gave substantially different weight to the same types of evidence, and that the Department of Defense had not evaluated or regularly monitored how each board was applying the guidance.
The Boards Do Not Always Apply the Rules the Same Way
The report identified concrete inconsistencies in how the boards treat key categories of evidence. For example, when a veteran presented a determination from the Department of Veterans Affairs connecting a mental health condition to military service, some boards treated that VA service-connection as sufficient evidence and granted relief, while others were far less willing to accept it without additional supporting documentation. The report described similar inconsistencies in how the boards weighed an applicant’s own testimony in cases involving sexual harassment or sexual assault, even though the governing guidance says a veteran’s testimony alone may be enough to establish that an experience occurred.
The report also found that the boards inconsistently explained their reasoning. The boards did not always explicitly answer the four questions the Kurta memorandum directs them to consider, which can leave a denied applicant without a clear understanding of where their application fell short or how to strengthen it.
Delays and Missing Records Compound the Problem
Timing is another concern. While the Boards for Correction of Military Records operate under statutory deadlines, the Discharge Review Boards and the Discharge Appeal Review Board have no required adjudication time frames at all. The report found that adjudication times varied significantly, and that one board in particular consistently exceeded its own published estimates, leaving applicants, many of whom face pressing financial and health challenges, to navigate unpredictable waits.
The report also examined the online “reading room,” the public database where prior board decisions are supposed to be posted so that applicants can study comparable cases. It found that roughly 43 percent of the decisional documents that should have been posted for liberal consideration cases during the review period were missing, and that the documents that were posted are not organized in a way that makes it easy to find relevant cases.
Should You Apply, or Reapply?
The report’s findings carry several practical takeaways for veterans considering a discharge upgrade:
- Because the boards apply the guidance inconsistently, how your application is built and framed, and how directly it addresses the questions the board is required to weigh, can meaningfully affect the outcome.
- A VA service-connection can be powerful evidence, but some boards want additional corroboration; anticipating that skepticism and supplying supporting records up front can make a difference.
- In cases involving sexual harassment or sexual assault, a veteran’s own testimony may carry significant weight, but presenting it effectively and consistently with the governing standard matters.
- A prior denial is not necessarily the end of the road; understanding why a board denied relief, and whether the decision reflected the guidance the board was supposed to apply, is the first step in deciding whether to reapply or appeal.
Why an Experienced Advocate Matters
The GAO report confirms what our practice has long emphasized: these boards are not simple forms to fill out. They are administrative bodies that weigh evidence, apply detailed guidance, and, as the report shows, do not always do so consistently. An application that carefully assembles the service records, medical documentation, and corroborating evidence, and maps that evidence to the standard the board is required to apply, is far more than a personal statement. It is a case built to be granted.
If you received a less-than-honorable discharge and believe your service-connected condition or experience was never fairly considered, we would welcome the opportunity to review your situation with compassion and candor. Whether you are applying for the first time or seeking to challenge a prior denial, having an advocate who understands how these boards operate, and where they fall short, can make all the difference. Contact our office to discuss your case.