(a) Except as described in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section, for appeals in which the appellant requested, on the Notice of Disagreement, a Board hearing, the Board's decision will be based on a review of the following:
(1) Evidence of record at the time of the agency of original jurisdiction's decision on the issue or issues on appeal;
(2) Evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative at the hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing; and
(3) Evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following the hearing.
(b) In the event that the hearing request is withdrawn pursuant to § 20.704(e), the Board's decision will be based on a review of evidence described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following receipt of the withdrawal.
(c) In the event that the appellant does not appear for a scheduled hearing, and the hearing is not rescheduled subject to § 20.704(d), the Board's decision will be based on a review of evidence described in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, and evidence submitted by the appellant or his or her representative within 90 days following the date of the scheduled hearing.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 7105, 7107, 7113(b))
[84 FR 182, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
233
cases (
76 in the last 5 years), 1992–2024 · leading case:
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1999).
Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (Vet. App. 1999).
· cites it 4× “§ 7105 (b)(1); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b) (1998); Archbold, supra.”
Henderson v. Shinseki, 131 S. Ct. 1197 (2011).
“§ 7105(b)(1); 38 CFR § 20.302 (a). A veteran may also reopen a previously denied claim at any time by presenting “new and material evidence,” 38 U.”
Beasley v. Shinseki, 709 F.3d 1154 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b)(2). Mr. Beasley may be frustrated by the lengthy history of his case, but he has not shown that he 10 BEASLEY v.”
M.C. Percy v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (Vet. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “§ 7105 (d)(3) or the one-year period specified in 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b); Appellant did not request nor did the RO grant any extensions of either period; and the [Board] did not adjudicate Appellant’s appeal on the merits but rather dismissed the appeal for failure to file a…”
Gary D. Bradley v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 280 (Vet. App. 2008).
“554, 556 (1993) (RO decision becomes final when claimant fails to file timely Substantive Appeal and VA does not waive timely filing requirement); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b) (requiring that a Substantive Appeal be filed within 60 days from the date the RO mails the SOC or within one…”
Mason v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 44 (Vet. App. 1995).
· cites it 2× “§ 7105 (b)(1); see 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (a) (1994) (“The date of mailing the letter of notification of the determination will be presumed to be the same as the date of that letter for purposes of determining whether an appeal has been timely filed.”
Archbold v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 124 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 6× “The Secretary states that, following the RO’s September 1992 decision, the SSOC not only notified the veteran of the adverse action taken on the CUE claim but also advised him “of his obligation to file a response within 60 days” and that he did not file his substantive appeal…”
Holland v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 324 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 4× “VA regulations in 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (c) appear to provide guidance as to when a response to an SSOC would be required: Where [an SSOC] is furnished, a period of 60 days from the date of mailing of the [SSOC] will be allowed for response.”
Horowitz v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 217 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 2× “§ 7105 (b)(1) (West 1991) (NOD must be “filed within one year from the date of mailing of notice of the result of the initial review or determination”); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (1992); Prenzler v. Derwinski, 928 F.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b)(2) — 1 case
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.