U.S. Code » Title 10 » Subtitle Subtitle A— General Military Law › Part PART II— PERSONNEL › Chapter CHAPTER 61— RETIREMENT OR SEPARATION FOR PHYSICAL DISABILITY

10 U.S.C. § 1216a

Determinations of disability: requirements and limitations on determinations

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 10 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a)Utilization of VA Schedule for Rating Disabilities in Determinations of Disability.—(1) In making a determination of disability of a member of the armed forces for purposes of this chapter, the Secretary concerned—(A) shall, to the extent feasible, utilize the schedule for rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs, including any applicable interpretation of the schedule by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims; and(B) except as provided in paragraph (2), may not deviate from the schedule or any such interpretation of the schedule.(2) In making a determination described in paragraph (1), the Secretary concerned may utilize in lieu of the schedule described in that paragraph such criteria as the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs may jointly prescribe for purposes of this subsection if the utilization of such criteria will result in a determination of a greater percentage of disability than would be otherwise determined through the utilization of the schedule.(b)Consideration of All Medical Conditions.—In making a determination of the rating of disability of a member of the armed forces for purposes of this chapter, the Secretary concerned shall take into account all medical conditions, whether individually or collectively, that render the member unfit to perform the duties of the member’s office, grade, rank, or rating.(Added Pub. L. 110–181, div. A, title XVI, § 1642(a), Jan. 28, 2008, 122 Stat. 465.)
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 30 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 2010–2026 · leading case: Brass v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 2015).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Brass v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 10× “Military Pay; Wounded Warrior Act; Physical Disability Board of Review; 10 U.S.C. § 1216a OPINION Firestone, Judge.”
Martinez v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 176 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 4× “28, 2008) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a), mandated that, as of the effective *180 dale of that statute, the military services were “to the extent feasible, [to] utilize the schedule for rating disabilities in use by the Department of Veterans Affairs.”
Nathan T. Meidl v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 4× “§ 1201 (2006) (compensable disabilities); 10 U.S.C.A § 1216a(b) (2012) (medical conditions considered in disability determinations); Army Regulation 636-40 (physical evaluation for separation); 38 C.”
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023). · cites it 3× “” 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(b). Army regulations similarly provide that a soldier may be determined unfit based on “the overall effect of two or more impairments even though each of them, standing alone, would not cause the Soldier to be found unfit because of physical disability.”
Sabo v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 606 (Fed. Cl. 2016). · cites it 2× “In conjunction with this provision, Congress added a new section to chapter 61 of title 10 of the United States Code — 10 U.S.C. § 1216a. Id. § 1642, 122 Stat. at 466.”
Taylor v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 443 (Fed. Cl. 2012). · cites it 5× “3 , 465 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a) (the “2008 NDAA”) — the medical consultant concluded that he does not doubt the sincerely [sic ] or intent of the SAFPC in making the decision to reduce the [plaintiffl’s disability rating; believing this was based upon sound medical…”
Adams v. United States, 117 Fed. Cl. 628 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 3× “§ 1201 ; 10 U.S.C. § 1216a; Department of Veterans Affairs Schedule for Rating Disabilities (VASRD); 38 C.”
Kareem R. Rock v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 113 (Fed. Cl. 2013). · cites it 3× “¶ 21, relies on 10 U.S.C. § 1216a, which requires the Navy to “utilize the [VA disability rating schedule], including any applicable interpretation of the schedule by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” to the extent feasible in making disability…”
Nathan T. Meidl v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 607 (Fed. Cl. 2014). · cites it 4× “On January 25, 2013, the court determined that, by failing to consider whether Plaintiffs foot conditions “contributed to rendering him unfit,” the February 2, 2012 ABCMR decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(b). See Meidl II, 108 Fed.”
Stine v. United States, 92 Fed. Cl. 776 (Fed. Cl. 2010). “”) (emphasis added); see also 10 U.S.C. § 1216a (rendering § 4.129 applicable to the military branches); Amended Complaint, Sabo v.”
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 465 (2008) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(l)). This reaffirmed the Service Branches’ obligation to follow the VASRD when assessing disability ratings.”
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015). · cites it 2× “In conjunction with this provision, Congress added a new section to chapter 61 of title 10 of the United States Code — 10 U.S.C. § 1216a. Id. § 1642, 122 Stat. at 465.”
Show all 30 citing cases →
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(1)(A) — 1 case
Keltner v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023).
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a) — 3 cases
Cook v. United States, 123 Fed. Cl. 277 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “In conjunction with this provision, Congress added a new section to chapter 61 of title 10 of the United States Code — 10 U.S.C. § 1216a. Id. § 1642, 122 Stat. at 465.”
Brass v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “Military Pay; Wounded Warrior Act; Physical Disability Board of Review; 10 U.S.C. § 1216a OPINION Firestone, Judge.”
Taylor v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 443 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “3 , 465 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a) (the “2008 NDAA”) — the medical consultant concluded that he does not doubt the sincerely [sic ] or intent of the SAFPC in making the decision to reduce the [plaintiffl’s disability rating; believing this was based upon sound medical…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(1)(A) — 3 cases
Jones v. United States Dep't of Def. (D.D.C. 2023).
Keltner v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2023).
Prewitt v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2025).
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(2) — 2 cases
Brass v. United States, 120 Fed. Cl. 157 (Fed. Cl. 2015). “Military Pay; Wounded Warrior Act; Physical Disability Board of Review; 10 U.S.C. § 1216a OPINION Firestone, Judge.”
Brass v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 505 (Fed. Cl. 2016).
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(l) — 1 case
Sabo v. United States, 102 Fed. Cl. 619 (Fed. Cl. 2011). “3 , 465 (2008) (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(l)). This reaffirmed the Service Branches’ obligation to follow the VASRD when assessing disability ratings.”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(l)(A) — 1 case
Kareem R. Rock v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 113 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “¶ 21, relies on 10 U.S.C. § 1216a, which requires the Navy to “utilize the [VA disability rating schedule], including any applicable interpretation of the schedule by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” to the extent feasible in making disability…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(a)(l)(B) — 1 case
Kareem R. Rock v. United States, 112 Fed. Cl. 113 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “¶ 21, relies on 10 U.S.C. § 1216a, which requires the Navy to “utilize the [VA disability rating schedule], including any applicable interpretation of the schedule by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims,” to the extent feasible in making disability…”
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(b) — 14 cases
Nathan T. Meidl v. United States, 108 Fed. Cl. 570 (Fed. Cl. 2013). “§ 1201 (2006) (compensable disabilities); 10 U.S.C.A § 1216a(b) (2012) (medical conditions considered in disability determinations); Army Regulation 636-40 (physical evaluation for separation); 38 C.”
Jason Sissel v. Christine Wormuth, 77 F.4th 941 (D.C. Cir. 2023). “” 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(b). Army regulations similarly provide that a soldier may be determined unfit based on “the overall effect of two or more impairments even though each of them, standing alone, would not cause the Soldier to be found unfit because of physical disability.”
Nathan T. Meidl v. United States, 114 Fed. Cl. 607 (Fed. Cl. 2014). “On January 25, 2013, the court determined that, by failing to consider whether Plaintiffs foot conditions “contributed to rendering him unfit,” the February 2, 2012 ABCMR decision was arbitrary and capricious and violated 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(b). See Meidl II, 108 Fed.”
Taylor v. United States, 106 Fed. Cl. 443 (Fed. Cl. 2012). “3 , 465 (codified at 10 U.S.C. § 1216a) (the “2008 NDAA”) — the medical consultant concluded that he does not doubt the sincerely [sic ] or intent of the SAFPC in making the decision to reduce the [plaintiffl’s disability rating; believing this was based upon sound medical…”
Fuentes v. United States (Fed. Cl. 2021).
— 10 U.S.C. § 1216a(l) — 1 case
Sabo v. United States, 127 Fed. Cl. 606 (Fed. Cl. 2016). “In conjunction with this provision, Congress added a new section to chapter 61 of title 10 of the United States Code — 10 U.S.C. § 1216a. Id. § 1642, 122 Stat. at 466.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.