38 C.F.R. § 19.29
Statement of the Case
The Statement of the Case must be complete enough to allow the appellant to present written and/or oral arguments before the Board of Veterans' Appeals. It must contain:
(a) A summary of the evidence in the case relating to the issue or issues with which the appellant or representative has expressed disagreement;
(b) A summary of the applicable laws and regulations, with appropriate citations, and a discussion of how such laws and regulations affect the determination; and
(c) The determination of the agency of original jurisdiction on each issue and the reasons for each such determination with respect to which disagreement has been expressed.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 42
cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1993–2026 · leading case: Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006).
Dingess - Hartman v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 473 (Vet. App. 2006). “38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (2005). The claimant may submit additional evidence after receipt of the SOC for consideration by both the RO and the Board.”
Martin v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “§ 7105 (d)(1); see 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 . MARTIN v. O’ROURKE 7 ment, again, has not explained the cause of this delay, even though the transfer process appears to consist of simply transferring appellate records.”
Sprinkle v. Shinseki, 733 F.3d 1180 (Fed. Cir. 2013). “§ 7105 (d)(1); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (requiring that the Statement of the Case “be complete enough to allow the appellant to pre- sent written and/or oral arguments before the Board”).”
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1999). “See 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (1998) (stating that an “[SOC] must be complete enough to allow the appellant to present written and/or oral arguments before the Board”).”
Meyer v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 425 (Vet. App. 1996). “§ 7105 (d)(1)(B), 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (1995), and VA General Counsel opinion 16-92 (July 24, 1992) [hereinafter G.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “appellant to present written and/or oral arguments before the [BVA],” 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (1992). (In simultaneously contested claims, each interested party must be furnished with an SOC.”
Stanley A. Hamilton & Michael J. Hermann, Claimants-Appellants v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 39 F.3d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1994). “§ 7105 (d)(1); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 . Then, assuming the veteran continues to dispute the claim, the veteran perfects the appeal by filing a “substantive appeal.”
Marsh v. West, 11 Vet. App. 468 (Vet. App. 1998). “553, 564-70 (1996); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 , (b), (c) (SOC “must be complete enough to allow the appellant to present written and/or oral argument before the Board” and must contain, inter alia, a “summary of the applicable laws and regulations, with appropriate citations,…”
Edison B. Locklear v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 311 (Vet. App. 2011). “Because the Board referred the responsibility of the adjudication of entitlement to TDIU to the RO for the preparation of an SOC, without some other fact that could imply notice, a reasonable person would understand that an SOC addressing TDIU was a necessary predicate to any…”
Marciniak v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 198 (Vet. App. 1997). “§ 7105 (d); see also 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (1995). The Secretary has conceded that the SOC is unavailable for review.”
Michael D. Herndon, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 311 F.3d 1121 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “38 C.F.R. § 19.29 (2001). Specific items in the statement of the case are to be used by the veteran to assert errors of fact and law committed by the regional office in the veteran’s substantive appeal to the board.”
Jacqueline S. Roberts v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 108 (Vet. App. 2014). “[a] citation to pertinent laws and regulations and a discussion of how such laws and regulations affect the agency’s decisión”); 38 C.F.R. § 19.29 , (b), (c) (2014) (SOC “must be complete enough to allow the appellant to present written and/or oral argument before the Board”;…”
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.