38 C.F.R. § 20.1201

Rule 1201. Amendment of appellate decisions

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

A request for amendment of an appellate decision under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. 552a) may be entertained. However, such a request may not be used in lieu of, or to circumvent, the procedures established under Rules 1001 through 1004 (§§ 20.1001-20.1004). The Board will review a request for correction of factual information set forth in a decision. Where the request to amend under the Privacy Act is an attempt to alter a judgment made by the Board and thereby replace the adjudicatory authority and functions of the Board, the request will be denied on the basis that the Act does not authorize a collateral attack upon that which has already been the subject of a decision of the Board. The denial will satisfy the procedural requirements of § 1.579 of this chapter. If otherwise appropriate, the request will be considered one for reconsideration under Rules 1001 through 1004 (§§ 20.1001-20.1004).

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552a(d); 38 U.S.C. 7103, 7108) [57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 191, Jan. 18, 2019]

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 2 cases, 2006–2006 · leading case: Glenn H. Jackson, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 449 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Glenn H. Jackson, Claimant-Appellant v. R. James Nicholson, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 449 F.3d 1204 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “1104-1105 (2004) (providing that appellate decision which affirms agency deter-ruination subsumes the agency determination); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1201 (2004) (providing for amendment of appellate decision upon request under special circumstances); 38 C.”

Jackson v. Nicholson (Fed. Cir. 2006). “1104-1105 (2004) (providing that appellate decision which affirms agency determination subsumes the agency determination); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1201 (2004) (providing for amendment of appellate decision upon request under special circumstances); 38 C.”

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.