(a) Authority is delegated to the Under Secretary for Benefits and to supervisory or adjudicative personnel within the jurisdiction of the Veterans Benefits Administration designated by the Under Secretary to make findings and decisions under the applicable laws, regulations, precedents, and instructions, as to entitlement of claimants to benefits under all laws administered by the Department of Veterans Affairs governing the payment of monetary benefits to veterans and their dependents, within the jurisdiction of the Compensation Service or the Pension and Fiduciary Service.
(b) Authority is delegated to the Director, Compensation Service, and the Director, Pension and Fiduciary Service, and to personnel of each service designated by its Director to determine whether a claimant or payee has forfeited the right to gratuitious benefits or to remit a prior forfeiture pursuant to the provisions of 38 U.S.C. 6103 or 6104. See § 3.905.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 512(a))
[29 FR 7547, June 12, 1964, as amended at 31 FR 14455, Nov. 10, 1966; 37 FR 10442, May 23, 1972; 53 FR 3207, Feb. 4, 1988; 60 FR 18355, Apr. 11, 1995; 61 FR 20727, May 8, 1996; 78 FR 2100, Jan. 13, 2014]
Notes of Decisions
Military Order of the Purple Heart v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 580 F.3d 1293 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
· cites it 4× “" The Secretary has delegated authority for benefits adjudication to the ROs via 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (a), [2] and a veteran whose file undergoes C & P Service review pursuant to the EAP still has the right to a hearing before the RO.”
James L. Parrish v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 391 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 10× “Parrish timely sought reconsideration, specifically contending that 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 does not permit the Under Secretary for Benefits (USB) to delegate obligations that expressly are placed upon him by § 3.”
George v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740 (2022).
“§511(a); see 38 CFR §3.100 (a) (2021). To that end, the statute governing wartime service imposes a “[p]resumption of sound condi- tion”: If a veteran’s disability was not noted at the time of entry into service, then the veteran is presumptively enti- tled to benefits unless…”
William Edwards v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., 690 F.2d 595 (6th Cir. 1982).
“38 C.F.R. § 3.100 . The decision to award or deny benefits must be based on evidence submitted in accordance with the regulations ( 38 C.”
Kay Butler v. United States, 702 F.3d 749 (4th Cir. 2012).
“605 (FTCA procedures), with 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.100 -.115 (procedures for disability benefits claims).”
Gary Littlejohn v. United States, 321 F.3d 915 (9th Cir. 2003).
“600-605 (FTCA procedures), with 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 -.115 (procedures for disability benefit claims).”
Trilles v. West, 13 Vet. App. 314 (Vet. App. 2000).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.100 (b), 3.905(a) (1998); see also MANUAL M21-1, Part IV, ¶ 36.”
Marvin O. Johnson v. Eric K. Shinseki, 26 Vet. App. 237 (Vet. App. 2013).
· cites it 2× “391, 396 (2011) (recognizing Secretary's broad authority to delegate authority to act); 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (a) (delegating general authority to the USB to act on matters within the jurisdiction of the Veterans that the USB and Director do not have the authority to grant an…”
H ENRY R. T AVARES v. Anthony J. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 131 (Vet. App. 2004).
· cites it 4× “18 is applicable to VA employees authorized to act under 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (2003), which generally includes adjudicative personnel.”
Hilkert v. West, 12 Vet. App. 145 (Vet. App. 1999).
“See 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (a) (1998) (general authority for Under Secretary for Benefits to designate supervisory personnel of Veterans Benefits Administration to make findings under applicable law and regulation as to payment of VA compensation and pension benefits).”
Floyd v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 88 (Vet. App. 1996).
“Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.100 (a) (1994), Authority is delegated to the Chief Benefits Director and to supervisory or adjudicative personnel within the jurisdiction of the Veterans Benefits Administration designated by the Director to make findings and decisions under the applicable…”
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.