(a) The “benefit of the doubt” rule of 38 U.S.C. 5107(b) does not apply to the Board's decision, on a motion under this subpart, as to whether there was clear and unmistakable error in a prior Board decision.
(b) For legacy appeals as defined in § 19.2 of this chapter, a motion under this subpart is not a claim subject to reopening under 38 U.S.C. 5108 (prior to the effective date described in Rule 4, paragraph (a) (§ 20.4(a) of this part) (relating to reopening claims on the grounds of new and material evidence).
(c) A motion under this subpart is not an application for benefits subject to any duty associated with 38 U.S.C. 5103(a) (relating to applications for benefits).
(d) A motion under this subpart is not a claim for benefits subject to the requirements and duties associated with 38 U.S.C. 5103A (imposing a duty to assist).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a))
[57 FR 4109, Feb. 3, 1992, as amended at 84 FR 193, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
11
cases, 2000–2018 · leading case:
Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165 (Vet. App. 2001).
Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165 (Vet. App. 2001).
· cites it 5× “38 C.F.R. § 20.1411 (a). Board decisions on CUE motions are not subject to reopening on the grounds of new and material evidence.”
Williams v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 189 (Vet. App. 2001).
“2000) (stating that court would “only address those challenges that were briefed”; addressing challenges to validity of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1411 (c) and (d) under pre-VCAA versions of 38 U.”
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
· cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.1411 . PVA challenges Rule 1411(a) as being contrary to the clear meaning of 38 U.”
13-32 913 (Board of Vet. App. 2014).
· cites it 2× “165 (2001) (en banc); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1411 (c). Under 38 U.S.C.A.”
17-58 188 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
“The pertinent laws and regulations at the time of this decision were similar, if not essentially the same, as they are now.”
15-26 545 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
“The moving party contends that that his claim of entitlement to prostate cancer was first filed in June 2008 and was not addressed in the December 19, 2014 Board decision.”
13-11 032 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
“Specifically, the moving party contends that the Board failed to apply 38 C.”
17-34 637 (Board of Vet. App. 2018).
“The pertinent laws and regulations at the time of this decision were similar, if not essentially the same, as they are now.”
14-04 140 (Board of Vet. App. 2014).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 20.1411 (a). In fact, the moving party bears the burden of presenting specific allegations of error that would amount to CUE.”
14-21 239 (Board of Vet. App. 2014).
“In the present case, the Veteran has failed to set forth clearly and specifically the alleged clear and unmistakable error or errors of fact or law within the May 2008 Board decision, the legal and factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly…”
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.