For most Americans, the law provides a straightforward path when things go wrong. If you are discriminated against, denied pay, or wrongfully fired, you can take your case to court. In one proceeding, a judge or jury can hear the facts, weigh the law, and grant remedies that restore what was lost. It is rarely easy, but it is coherent. One system exists to handle the full scope of harm, so even if you lose, you know that your case has been heard in its entirety.
Servicemembers do not enjoy that same clarity. Instead, they face a fragmented system made up of boards, tribunals, and courts that divide remedies into narrow silos. A constitutional claim must be brought in federal district court. A pay dispute must be filed in the Court of Federal Claims. Corrections to personnel records require a petition to a Board for Correction of Military Records. Promotions are left to Special Selection Boards. None of these bodies talk to one another, and none is empowered to give a servicemember complete justice.
This arrangement is not just confusing. It is unjust. A soldier, sailor, airman, or Marine who has been harmed may have to fight four separate battles, each with different standards, deadlines, and evidentiary requirements. At the same time, the very lawyers who know servicemembers best, Judge Advocates in the Trial Defense Service, are barred from pursuing these broader remedies. The system ensures that the people who risk their lives for the nation are left with fewer protections than the civilians they defend.
Legal Pathways That Don’t Add Up
The most obvious flaw in the military’s remedial system is its fragmentation. Each forum holds a piece of authority but never the whole. Federal district courts may recognize that a regulation violates the Constitution, but they cannot award back pay or reinstate a promotion. The Court of Federal Claims may grant financial relief but has no power to alter records or restore a career. Correction boards can amend paperwork but cannot compel other bodies to respect those changes. Promotions remain locked behind the opaque process of Special Selection Boards.
This means that a servicemember harmed by a single unlawful action must pursue multiple cases at once. For example, an officer unfairly removed from promotion consideration may need to prove the injustice before a correction board, then re-argue the consequences before a Special Selection Board, and still file separately in the Court of Federal Claims to recover lost pay. Each tribunal demands new filings, fresh arguments, and different evidence — often treating prior decisions as irrelevant. What should be one unified story is broken into pieces that rarely align.
The consequences are not just procedural. They are deeply personal. Careers stall while years of litigation drag on. Families face financial strain while pay disputes crawl through the Court of Federal Claims. Servicemembers burn out as they relitigate the same facts in forum after forum. The government, meanwhile, benefits from delay, knowing that most people will give up before reaching the finish line. A process that should deliver justice becomes a war of attrition.
Limits on Representation and Advocacy
If the system itself is fragmented, the rules on representation only make matters worse. Military defense counsel are often the most trusted advocates for servicemembers. They understand the pressures of command, the unwritten rules of military life, and the way administrative actions affect a career. Their relationships with clients are built on trust, forged during some of the most difficult moments of a servicemember’s service.
Yet these Judge Advocates are tightly restricted. They cannot sue the government in federal court. They cannot appear before the Court of Federal Claims. And their representation usually ends the moment a servicemember separates. This creates a cruel paradox: The lawyers who know a servicemember’s case best are the very ones barred from pursuing the remedies that matter most.
Civilian attorneys can sometimes step in, but very few have the expertise to navigate the military’s board system or the overlapping jurisdictions of its tribunals. Even when they do, the loss of continuity means that the servicemember must retell their story again and again to new counsel, losing strategy and momentum each time. The system guarantees a gap between knowledge and authority — a gap that commanders and government attorneys can exploit to wear down even the strongest cases.
Remedies That Disappear at Separation
One of the most unfair aspects of the system is that remedies often vanish the moment a servicemember separates from the military. Many claims must be filed while still in uniform. Others expire almost immediately after separation. This means that the very act of being forced out (often unlawfully) becomes the trigger that prevents a servicemember from pursuing justice.
The contrast with civilian law is stark. An employee wrongfully terminated from a private company can usually file suit months or even years later. The law recognizes that people need time to gather documents, find a lawyer, and stabilize their lives before going to court. The military takes the opposite approach. Rights expire at the moment of separation, when servicemembers are at their most vulnerable, least resourced, and least able to fight back.
This structure benefits only the institution. Commands know that if they delay long enough, separation will foreclose remedies and moot claims. Servicemembers, facing the pressures of transition, are forced to accept partial solutions or nothing at all. What should be a safeguard for fairness becomes a tool for silencing claims before they are ever heard.
Why Reform Is Urgently Needed
The military board system is a relic of another era. It was built when secrecy and unquestioned deference to command were considered more important than fairness or accountability. That era has passed. Today, servicemembers live in a world where military service is intertwined with civilian law, federal oversight, and public expectations of justice. The remedial system should reflect that reality.
Reform would not require tearing the system down. At a minimum, tribunals should be required to respect and enforce each other’s rulings. A servicemember should not have to prove the same facts four times before four different bodies. Ideally, Congress would create a unified forum empowered to consider constitutional, financial, and career-related claims together, ensuring consistency and efficiency. Deadlines should be extended to account for the disruption of separation, not weaponized against those who have served.
At its core, this is about fairness. Servicemembers should not be asked to fight four fragmented battles for one injustice. They should not lose rights at the very moment they take off the uniform. And they should not be left without advocates who understand their cases and can follow them through every step of the process. Reform is not about special treatment. It is about giving servicemembers the same access to justice that every other American already has.
About the Author: Nick Harrison is a Washington DC–based attorney and Judge Advocate in the DC National Guard. He represents individuals, nonprofits, and small businesses, with a particular focus on protecting servicemembers’ rights. His work combines military defense, civil litigation, and advocacy to challenge unfair systems and hold institutions accountable.
