38 C.F.R. § 19.30
Furnishing the Statement of the Case and instructions for filing a Substantive Appeal
(a) To whom the Statement of the Case is furnished. The Statement of the Case will be forwarded to the appellant at the latest address of record and a separate copy provided to his or her representative (if any).
(b) Information furnished with the Statement of the Case. With the Statement of the Case, the appellant and the representative will be furnished information on the right to file, and time limit for filing, a substantive appeal; information on hearing and representation rights; a VA Form 9, “Appeal to Board of Veterans' Appeals”; and a statement describing the available review options if the appellant elects review of the issue or issues on appeal in the modernized review system.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 15
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case: Virginia S. Crain v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 182 (Vet. App. 2003).
Virginia S. Crain v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 182 (Vet. App. 2003). “§ 7105 and 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 . Memorandum (Mem.) at 2-5.”
Martin v. O'Rourke, 891 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2018). “” See 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (b). Once the veteran files a Form 9, the VA completes a Certification of Appeal.”
German L. Matthews v. Anthony J. Principi, 19 Vet. App. 23 (Vet. App. 2005). “” 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (a) (2004). The 2004 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations provisions quoted above have not changed in any material respect from those in effect in 1996.”
Thurber v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1993). “It must furnish a Statement of the Case (SOC) to a claimant, 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (1992), which “must be complete enough to allow .”
Mason v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 44 (Vet. App. 1995). “Based on the ROA, the Court finds that the SOC was mailed to the veteran at the “latest address of record” pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (a). The ROA does not reflect that a 1-9 Appeal was filed after the issuance of the SOC, or that the appellant requested an extension of time…”
Velez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 148 (Vet. App. 1998). “§ 7105 (d)(l)-(4); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.30 , 19.31, 19.37 (1997).”
Kuo v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 662 (Vet. App. 1992). “4106 (1992) (to be codified at 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (a))), “[t]he statement of the case will be forwarded to the appellant at the latest address of record and a separate copy provided to the representative (if any)” (emphasis supplied).”
Luke C. Miley, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 242 F.3d 1050 (Fed. Cir. 2001). “§ 7105 (d)(3); 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (b). The regional office must then certify the case to the BVA, transfer the record, and notify the veteran of the certification and transfer.”
Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 124 (Vet. App. 1996). “103 (b) (1995) (“[claimants and their representatives are entitled to notice of any decision made by [VA] affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief’); 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (1995) (“[t]he [SOC] will be forwarded to the appellant at the latest address of record and…”
Morgan v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 20 (Vet. App. 2002). “shall include an explanation of the procedure for obtaining review of the decision”); 38 C.F.R. § 19.30 (b) (2001). The Board in its June 30, 1997, decision regarding the DIC claim clearly recognized the inadequacy of the process that the RO had afforded to the appellant; the…”
Matthew W. Crumlich v. Robert L. Wilkie (Vet. App. 2019). “He also contended that, because section 7105(d) pertains to the required content of the SOC and does not indicate that appellate information (such as the time to file the Substantive Appeal) should be included, the Secretary's inclusion in the SOC of information about the…”
190619-10284 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). “§ 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.30 , 20.200, 20.202, 20.302 (2018).”
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.