An appellate decision may be vacated by the Board of Veterans' Appeals at any time upon request of the appellant or his or her representative, or on the Board's own motion, on the following grounds:
(a) Denial of due process. Examples of circumstances in which denial of due process of law will be conceded are:
(1) When the appellant was denied his or her right to representation through action or inaction by Department of Veterans Affairs or Board of Veterans' Appeals personnel,
(2) When there was a prejudicial failure to afford the appellant a personal hearing. (Where there was a failure to honor a request for a hearing and a hearing is subsequently scheduled, but the appellant fails to appear, the decision will not be vacated.), and
(3) For a legacy appeal, as defined in § 19.2 of this chapter, when a Statement of the Case or required Supplemental Statement of the Case was not provided.
(b) Allowance of benefits based on false or fraudulent evidence. Where it is determined on reconsideration that an allowance of benefits by the Board has been materially influenced by false or fraudulent evidence submitted by or on behalf of the appellant, the prior decision will be vacated only with respect to the issue or issues to which, within the judgment of the Board, the false or fraudulent evidence was material.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104(a))
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992. Redesignated and amended at 84 FR 177, 191, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4337, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
David J. Harms v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238 (Vet. App. 2006).
· cites it 6× “904 (2005), the denial of a motion to vacate is a final Board decision, not a denial of reconsideration by the Board Chairman pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (2005). In this regard, he also argues that the Court's decision in Browne v.”
William R. Young v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 201 (Vet. App. 2012).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (a) (2011) (stating that "[r]econsideration of an appellate decision may be accorded at any time by the Board .”
James I. Evans v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (2011). The Secretary further argues that the appellant "explicitly abandoned" the issues of asbestos exposure, hepatitis B, and hepatitis C during his January 2008 hearing before the Board.”
Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534 (Vet. App. 2002).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (a) (1999) (stating that reconsideration of BVA decision is to be accorded, inter alia, "[u]pon allegation of obvious error of fact or law").”
Romero v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 410 (Vet. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “However, this new evidence is neither *413 relevant nor probative as to the issue of POW status for purposes of this Court’s review of the denial of reconsideration by the Chairman because such affidavits do not constitute the type of new evidence which may be the basis for such…”
Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122 (Vet. App. 2000).
“38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (a) (1999) (stating that reconsideration of BVA decision is to be accorded, inter alia, “[u]pon allegation of obvious error of fact or law”).”
Smith v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 546 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 2× “§ 7103 (a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1000 , 20.1001 (1995). Section 7103 of title 38 of the U.”
Browne v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 278 (Vet. App. 2002).
· cites it 3× “2000); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1000 , 20.1001 (1999).”), with Board’s August 14, 2001, Resp.”
Rosler v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 241 (Vet. App. 1991).
“VA regulations specify three grounds — obvious error of fact or law, certain new and material evidence, and false or fraudulent evidence — for the BVA to grant reconsideration. 38 C.F.R. § 19.185 (1990).”
Engelke v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 396 (Vet. App. 1997).
· cites it 3× “410, 412-13 (1994); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 (b) (1996). Finally, the appellant contends that the recent hearing examination is evidence of “changed circumstances” upon which the Chairman should have reconsidered the BVA decision, and this Court should review the Chairman’s…”
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.