38 C.F.R. § 19.33
[Reserved]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4
cases, 1996–2007 · leading case: Leland E. Gibson v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 11 (Vet. App. 2007).
Leland E. Gibson v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 11 (Vet. App. 2007). “528, 536 (1993); but see 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.33 , 19.50-52 (authorizing certain VA officials to file an administrative appeal on a claimant's behalf if the RO determines there is a question as to the timeliness of a Substantive Appeal).”
Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005). “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.33 , 19.34, 19.50-.52 (2005) (RO procedure when it questions timeliness of NOD is to follow administrative appeal procedure).”
German L. Matthews v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 202 (Vet. App. 2005). “He also contends that the Board lacked jurisdiction because VA failed to comply with regulatory requirements for VA’s initiation of an administrative appeal (that is, an appeal to the Board by an RO official): Specifically, he asserts that VA failed to follow the…”
Swan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 450 (Vet. App. 1996). “401 (preserving appellate rights to Board during administrative appeal and allowing separate appeal of same issue to Board) (1995); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.33 (“[i]f, within the [AOJ], there is a question as to the timely filing of a .”
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.