38 C.F.R. § 20.300

Rule 300. General

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

(a) Decisions of the Board will be based on a de novo review of the evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction decision on the issue or issues on appeal, and any additional evidence or testimony submitted pursuant to this subpart, as provided in § 20.801.

(b) Waiver of appellant's right to submit evidence. For appeals described in 20.302 and 20.303, an appellant has a right to submit evidence during a period of 90 days, unless this right is waived by the appellant or representative at any time prior to the expiration of the applicable 90-day period. Such a waiver must be in writing or, if a hearing on appeal is conducted pursuant to 20.302, the waiver must be formally and clearly entered on the record orally at the time of the hearing.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7104) [84 FR 182, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 160 cases (43 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · leading case: Anthony Hunt v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 519 (Vet. App. 2006).
Anthony Hunt v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 519 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 2× “Hunt’s filing the Substantive Appeal with the Board rather than the RO resulted in a timely filing pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.300 (2003). The RO determined that, because Mr.”
Mason v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 44 (Vet. App. 1995). “at 157; see 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300 , 20.302 (1994). In August 1985, approximately one month after receiving the July 1985 NOD, the RO acknowledged that it had received the NOD and mailed an SOC to her at the 1520 Union Street address, the address noted in the veteran’s June 1985…”
Zevalkink v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 483 (Vet. App. 1994). “See also 38 C.F.R. § 20.300 (1993). In any event, it is not necessary for the Court to determine whether that document could be a valid NOD because the January 30,1991, VA Form 1-9 filed by the appellant with the RO (and date-stamped as received by the RO on February 5, 1991)…”
07-19 558 (Board of Vet. App. 2017). · cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300 , 20.301(a), 20.302(a) (2016).”
190813-26211 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.300 . The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence.”
200612-91294 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.300 . The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence.”
191218-50902 (Board of Vet. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.300 . The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence.”
200721-98253 (Board of Vet. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.300 (b). Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed.”
210310-141788 (Board of Vet. App. 2021). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300 , 20.301. Evidence was added to the claims file during a period of time when new evidence was not allowed.”
Everett W. Cook v. Denis McDonough (Vet. App. 2023). · cites it 2× “38 C.F.R. § 20.300 . The Veteran may file a Supplemental Claim and submit or identify this evidence.”
08-14 853 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
08-14 853 (Board of Vet. App. 2016).
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.