38 C.F.R. § 20.1100
Rule 1100. Finality of decisions of the Board
(a) General. All decisions of the Board will be stamped with the date of mailing on the face of the decision. Unless the Chairman of the Board orders reconsideration, and with the exception of matters listed in paragraph (b) of this section, all Board decisions are final on the date stamped on the face of the decision. With the exception of matters listed in paragraph (b) of this section, the decision rendered by the reconsideration Panel in an appeal in which the Chairman has ordered reconsideration is final.
(b) Exceptions. Final Board decisions are not subject to review except as provided in 38 U.S.C. 1975 and 1984 and 38 U.S.C. chapters 37 and 72. A remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a final decision of the Board.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1,246
cases (16 in the last 5 years), 1993–2025 · leading case: Robert v. Posey v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 406 (Vet. App. 2010).
Robert v. Posey v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 406 (Vet. App. 2010). “Posey argued in his brief that (1) the Board failed to mail its decision to his correct address and as a result it was returned to the Board as undeliverable; (2) the Board was aware of a different address for him; (3) he did not receive a copy of the Board decision mailed to…”
Loran L. Hayslip, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, 364 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). “§ 7103 (a) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (a), 5 are also implicated.”
Larry G. Tyrues v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 166 (Vet. App. 2009). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (1997). 5 The law in effect in 1998 provided that claims must be "well grounded" in order to invoke VA's duty to assist in their development.”
James W. Stanley, Jr., Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 283 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2002). “12 The government also points to 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (2001), which states that “[a] remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a final decision of the Board.”
Robert J. May v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 310 (Vet. App. 2005). “Finality of Board Decisions As to the finality of a Board decision, 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 provides: § 20.1100 Rule 1100.”
Brambley v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 20 (Vet. App. 2003). “2000); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (2002). For the reasons discussed below, the Court will vacate the Board decision and remand the matter for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.”
Daniel J. Murray v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 420 (Vet. App. 2011). “2000) (stating that a Board remand does not constitute a final decision that may be appealed (citing 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (1999))). 2 . Subluxation is "an incomplete or partial dislocation.”
David J. Jones v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 56 (Vet. App. 2012). “2000) (Board remand does not constitute a final decision that may be appealed (citing 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (1999))). 2 . See Stanley Jablonsky, Dictionary of Medical Acronyms and Abbreviations 374 (5th ed.”
George T. Richardson v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2006). “160 (d) (2005) (defining a "finally adjudicated claim" as a claim "which has been allowed or disallowed by the agency of original jurisdiction, the action having become final by the expiration of 1 year after the date of notice of an award or disallowance, or by denial on…”
Tyrues v. Dept. Of Vets. Affairs, 631 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2011). “38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (1997). (emphases added).”
Daniel R. Howard, Claimant-Appellant v. Hershel W. Gober, Acting Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 220 F.3d 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2000). “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (1999) (providing that “[a] remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a final decision of the Board”).”
Bobby L. Warren v. Robert A. McDonald, 28 Vet. App. 214 (Vet. App. 2016). “475, 478 (2004) (per curiam order); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (b) (2016). 2 . The record contains two copies of the statement, one noting date of receipt as April 7, 2010, and the other noting date of receipt as April 28, 2010.”
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.