C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 20—BOARD OF VETERANS' APPEALS: RULES OF PRACTICE › Subpart B—The Board

38 C.F.R. § 20.101

Rule 101. Composition of the Board; titles

Read at: eCFRecfr.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) The Board consists of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Deputy Vice Chairmen, Members and professional, administrative, clerical and stenographic personnel. Deputy Vice Chairmen are Members of the Board who are appointed to that office by the Secretary upon the recommendation of the Chairman.

(b) A Member of the Board (other than the Chairman) may also be known as a Veterans Law Judge. An individual designated as an acting member pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 7101(c)(1) may also be known as an acting Veterans Law Judge.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 7101(a)) [68 FR 6625, Feb. 10, 2003. Redesignated at 84 FR 177, Jan. 18, 2019, as amended at 84 FR 4336, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 88 cases (13 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: James I. Evans v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
James I. Evans v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2011). · cites it 18× “This regulation provides: The Board may address questions pertaining to its jurisdictional authority to review a particular case, including, but not limited to, determining whether .”
M.C. Percy v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (Vet. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “” Second, 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (c) (2008) provides: All claimants have the right to appeal a determination made by the agency of original jurisdiction that the Board does not have jurisdictional authority to review a particular case.”
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 4× “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (1994). Our dissenting colleague states that the Board has the authority to assign an extra-schedular rating in the first instance.”
Swiney v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 65 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 8× “183 (1998), the Board had consistently interpreted 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (b) to prohibit it from exercising jurisdiction over the Secretary's determination of whether fee-basis outpatient treatment was appropriate.”
Vets. for Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012). · cites it 2× “183, 187 (1998) (reversing the Board's conclusion that it lacked jurisdiction to resolve a veteran's eligibility for fee-basis medical care because, inter alia, such review would require only "an administrative decision as to whether the VA facility is capable of furnishing a…”
Meakin v. West, 11 Vet. App. 183 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 9× “38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (a), (b) (1997) (emphasis added).”
Eugene P. King v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 406 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “at 6 (citing 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (b) (2005)). The Board did not analyze or decide whether the appellant currently has the medical condition that he asserts is in need of treatment.”
Leland E. Gibson v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 11 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “"); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (c) (2006) (providing that "[a]ll claimants have the right to appeal a determination made by the agency of original jurisdiction that the 11 Board does not have jurisdictional authority to review a particular case").”
Zimick v. West, 11 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “Although specific medical determinations as to the appropriate medical treatment are not adjudicative matters over which the Board has jurisdiction, see 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (b), the appellant’s claim was premised not upon the appropriateness of a particular course of treatment,…”
Vets. for Common Sense v. Eric K. Shinseki, 644 F.3d 845 (9th Cir. 2011). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (b). Appointment scheduling decisions are not by any means medical determi- nations, so the BVA—and therefore the Veterans Court—have jurisdiction to review claims that such scheduling decisions violate due process.”
Beaudette v. McDonough, 93 F.4th 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2024). · cites it 6× “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (b) (1992) (“Medical determinations, such as deter- minations of the need for and appropriateness of specific types of medical care and treatment for an individual, are not adjudicative matters and are beyond the Board’s juris- diction.”
Orland R. Marsh v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 381 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “at 469 ; 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (c), (d) (2005). Accordingly, the Board has authority to assess its own jurisdiction.”
Show all 88 citing cases →
— 38 C.F.R. § 20.101(d) — 1 case
James I. Evans v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 7 (Vet. App. 2011). “This regulation provides: The Board may address questions pertaining to its jurisdictional authority to review a particular case, including, but not limited to, determining whether .”
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.