(a) Effective date of award. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law, or a liberalizing VA issue approved by the Secretary or by the Secretary's direction, the effective date of such award or increase shall be fixed in accordance with the facts found, but shall not be earlier than the effective date of the act or administrative issue. Where pension, compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or a monetary allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 18 for an individual who is a child of a Vietnam veteran or child of a veteran with covered service in Korea is awarded or increased pursuant to a liberalizing law or VA issue which became effective on or after the date of its enactment or issuance, in order for a claimant to be eligible for a retroactive payment under the provisions of this paragraph the evidence must show that the claimant met all eligibility criteria for the liberalized benefit on the effective date of the liberalizing law or VA issue and that such eligibility existed continuously from that date to the date of claim or administrative determination of entitlement. The provisions of this paragraph are applicable to original and supplemental claims as well as claims for increase.
(1) If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA within 1 year from the effective date of the law or VA issue, or at the request of a claimant received within 1 year from that date, benefits may be authorized from the effective date of the law or VA issue.
(2) If a claim is reviewed on the initiative of VA more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of administrative determination of entitlement.
(3) If a claim is reviewed at the request of the claimant more than 1 year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized for a period of 1 year prior to the date of receipt of such request.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 1805, 1815, 1821, 1832, 5110(g))
(b) Discontinuance of benefits. Where the reduction or discontinuance of an award is in order because of a change in law or a Department of Veterans Affairs issue, or because of a change in interpretation of a law or Department of Veterans Affairs issue, the payee will be notified at his or her latest address of record of the contemplated action and furnished detailed reasons therefor, and will be given 60 days for the presentation of additional evidence. If additional evidence is not received within that period, the award will be reduced or discontinued effective the last day of the month in which the 60-day period expired.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5112(b)(6))
[27 FR 11886, Dec. 1, 1962, as amended at 55 FR 13529, Apr. 11, 1990; 62 FR 17706, Apr. 11, 1997; 65 FR 35282, June 2, 2000; 67 FR 49586, July 31, 2002; 76 FR 4247, Jan. 25, 2011; 84 FR 168, Jan. 18, 2019; 84 FR 4336, Feb. 15, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
74
cases (
13 in the last 5 years), 1987–2025 · leading case:
Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
Ortiz v. McDonough, 6 F.4th 1267 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
· cites it 14× “For that contention, he relied on 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a), which implements 38 U.”
Frederick v. Shinseki, 684 F.3d 1263 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
· cites it 8× “§ 5110 (g) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 , which permit the Secre- tary to take the initiative to establish effective dates for benefits that have been enhanced by a change in law.”
Vola M. Brown v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 290 (Vet. App. 2007).
· cites it 29× “On appeal, the Court must determine whether the Board erred by failing to address the effective-date provision contained in 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a)(3) (2006), which provides for an effective date of one year prior to the date of the claim if benefits are awarded pursuant to a…”
Elizabeth H. Bonner v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 188 (Vet. App. 2005).
· cites it 8× “Bonner disagreed with the effective date, and, in a July 1996 Statement of the Case (SOC), the RO, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (1995) (if a claim is reviewed at the request of the claimant more than one year after the effective date of the law or VA issue, benefits may be authorized…”
Link v. West, 12 Vet. App. 39 (Vet. App. 1998).
· cites it 5× “The appellant, in September 1992, filed an NOD, seeking an effective date in May 1988 based upon 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a) (R. at 485), and an SOC was issued (R.”
McCay v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 183 (Vet. App. 1996).
· cites it 7× “The Court notes that this opinion does not differ in result from the vacated opinion, although the analysis as to the nature and extent of the application of 38 C.F.R. 3.114 have been revised. The Secretary contends that when 38 C.”
Lawrence Delisio v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 45 (Vet. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “§ 5110 (g); 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a)(3) (2011) (if claim for benefits is submitted more than one year after effective date of liberalizing law or issue, benefits may be authorized one year earlier than date of claim).”
Spencer v. Brown, 4 Vet. App. 283 (Vet. App. 1993).
· cites it 3× “§ 5110 (g) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a) (1992), VA is required to review previously and finally denied claims de novo when there has been an intervening liberalization of a law affecting entitlement to benefits, and that the VJRA is such a liberalizing law.”
Bonner v. Nicholson, 497 F.3d 1323 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a)(3). Following several more exchanges between Mrs.”
Benjamin F. Kent v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 2006).
“§ 5110 (g) and its implementing regulation, 38 C.F.R § 3.114 (2005). Section 5110(g) provides that “where compensation .”
Viglas v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 1 (Vet. App. 1994).
· cites it 4× “She was informed in an October 1991 Statement of the Case that, pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.114 (a) (1991), she was entitled to one year of retroactive DIC benefits, with payment beginning February 1990.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a) — 1 case
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(b) — 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.