Maybe, but my state does not mind asserting authority or going against the fed' in my opinion, a State Court has every right to disregard the decision if the claim is based on State Const. rather than Federal. I am for weakening the Feds.
Essentially you can argue either side:
To argue that K exists and is enforceable: then look to Section 87 of the Restatement. There might be an option contract because of the written and signed letter. If it merely purports consideration in exchange for whatever, then the consideration does not even have to exist (although it is not helpful that this it states past consideration - but you could argue that this is also a "future action" has he is able to bring about publicity for L).
To argue against the existence of K, which is probably the stronger argument, there was no detrimental reliance whatsoever to the offer = therefore no bargain and no K. In other words, the guy did not rely on the pension as a means to retire since he would have had to retire due to his injuries anyway. He is giving up nothing! So, I would have to disagree with the above arguments because promissory estoppel (detrimental reliance) will be defeated.