The Armed Forces Compensation Scheme – Changes Effective From 6 April 2026

Anyone who considered the Government response to the Armed Forces Compensation Scheme (AFCS) Quinquennial Review in 2023 will have been eagerly anticipating how the accepted recommendations would be implemented and what the consequences would be for claimants. 

SI 2026/272 answers our questions in the form of the Armed Forces and Reserve Forces (Compensation Scheme) (Amendment) Order 2026, which brings into force the recommended changes effective from 6 April 2026.

The first of three main changes which will have a major impact upon claimants, is the removal of the need for a consultant diagnosis for a claim for a mental health disorder to be accepted.   Before 6 April, a consultant-grade diagnosis was required, which has historically caused problems for claimants. The amendment to the footnotes in Table 3 now dictates that:

“Mental disorders must be diagnosed by a registered mental health professional (doctor, psychologist or nurse) working as part of a multi-disciplinary mental health team which is overseen by a named consultant clinical lead”.

This should be good news for claimants and mental health professionals alike and will make acceptance of a mental health disorder under the AFCS easier to achieve.

The second important and beneficial change for claimants is that the tariffs set out at Table 10 in the AFCS have all been increased by 3.8%, taking the lowest Level 15 award from £1,236 to £1,283, with the Level 1 award being increased from £650,000 to £674,700. An amendment which is very much in favour of the claimant.  

Thirdly, in their response to the Quinquennial Review, the Government accepted that changes should be made to the reconsideration process. However, even though SI 2026/272 does not seek to redraft or alter article 53 at all, what it does is make two indirect changes which have the capacity to significantly affect the reconsideration process:-

1. The category of admissible evidence is broadened. Medical evidence which may not previously have been accepted is now admissible.   This is particularly relevant to mental health disorders and PTSD and will have a major practical impact.
2. An amendment has been made to the wording of Article 14 in the Scheme, which has the effect that the date of a reconsideration decision becomes the “relevant date” in terms of applying the tariff in force for the purpose of the lump sum awards in Table 10.  Again, very important for claimants because the reconsideration outcome becomes the final decision, meaning that compensation is calculated at a later date.

Although we do not yet know how this will work on a practical level, it would seem that the intention of these indirect changes is aimed at strengthening the reconsideration process because -

a)    The evidence upon which a claimant can rely is broader, especially for mental health cases,

b)    Reconsideration should become more accessible and easier to achieve as a result.

c)    The outcome fully replaces the original decision and is legally recognised as the final decision and,

d)    The final decision determines payment using current tariff rates in force at the time.

We will have to wait and see how this works. Whilst all of the above is intended to be of significant benefit to claimants applying for reconsideration, the importance of getting it right at that stage in terms of evidence now becomes critical.  

Day after day, we are approached by claimants who, having received an initial decision they are unhappy with, almost immediately lodge an application to reconsider, without any analysis of why the decision was incorrect or of what they must do to rectify the situation. They often do not understand the evidential burden placed upon them to prove their own case, what evidence they need, and where or even how to get it. As a result, the next decision will often be the same since insufficient evidence has been provided to support higher tariff awards.   

If, as appears to be the case, the evidential centre of gravity may now shift to the reconsideration stage, claimants mustn't rush to make applications to reconsider but take the time to build their case, provide all of the relevant evidence to establish the prognosis for the future and present a fully reasoned case to achieve the correct result at that point. However, although the intention is now to achieve the correct result at an earlier stage, it could lead to further confusion for claimants unaware of their evidential obligation and in need of help to present their best case. 

It seems likely that reconsideration may now become the point at which there is a substantive redetermination of the evidence, and a claimant should consider this to be the stage at which the case must be properly built and to put their best foot forward evidentially.  It has therefore never been more important for a claimant to use wisely the one-year time period between the first decision and the reconsideration deadline.