(a) Complete claim. A submission of an application form prescribed by the Secretary, whether paper or electronic, that meets the following requirements:
(1) A complete claim must provide the name of the claimant; the relationship to the veteran, if applicable; and sufficient information for VA to verify the claimed service, if applicable.
(2) A complete claim must be signed by the claimant or a person legally authorized to sign for the claimant.
(3) A complete claim must identify the benefit sought.
(4) A description of any symptom(s) or medical condition(s) on which the benefit is based must be provided to the extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires.
(5) For nonservice-connected disability or survivors pension and parents' dependency and indemnity compensation claims, a statement of income must be provided to the extent the form prescribed by the Secretary so requires; and
(6) For supplemental claims, potentially new evidence must be identified or included.
(b) Original claim. The initial complete claim for one or more benefits on an application form prescribed by the Secretary.
(c) Pending claim. A claim which has not been finally adjudicated.
(d) Finally adjudicated claim. A claim that is adjudicated by the Department of Veterans Affairs as either allowed or disallowed is considered finally adjudicated when:
(1) For legacy claims not subject to the modernized review system, whichever of the following occurs first:
(i) The expiration of the period in which to file a Notice of Disagreement, pursuant to the provisions of § 19.52(a) or § 20.502(a) of this chapter, as applicable; or
(ii) Disposition on appellate review.
(2) For claims under the modernized review system, the expiration of the period in which to file a review option available under § 3.2500 or disposition on judicial review where no such review option is available.
(e) Reopened claims prior to effective date of modernized review system. An application for a benefit received prior to the effective date provided in § 19.2(a) of this chapter, after final disallowance of an earlier claim that is subject to readjudication on the merits based on receipt of new and material evidence related to the finally adjudicated claim, or any claim based on additional evidence or a request for a personal hearing submitted more than 90 days following notification to the appellant of the certification of an appeal and transfer of applicable records to the Board of Veterans' Appeals which was not considered by the Board in its decision and was referred to the agency of original jurisdiction for consideration as provided in § 20.1304(b)(1) of this chapter. As of the effective date provided in § 19.2(a) of this chapter, claimants may no longer file to reopen a claim, but may file a supplemental claim as prescribed in § 3.2501 to apply for a previously disallowed benefit. A request to reopen a finally decided claim that has not been adjudicated as of the effective date will be processed as a supplemental claim subject to the modernized review system.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501)
[27 FR 11887, Dec. 1, 1962, as amended at 31 FR 12056, Sept. 15, 1966; 55 FR 20148, May 15, 1990; 58 FR 32445, June 10, 1993; 79 FR 57696, Sept. 25, 2014; 84 FR 170, Jan. 18, 2019]
Notes of Decisions
Vets. Just. Grp., LLC v. Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 818 F.3d 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 6× “for which appellate review is sought,” and new 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (a)(3)-(4), under which claimants must “identify the benefit sought” and provide “a description of symptom(s) or medical condition(s) on which the benefit is based,” respectively.”
Bean v. McDonough, 66 F.4th 979 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
· cites it 6× “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2006). Case: 22-1447 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 04/26/2023 BEAN v.”
Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
· cites it 3× “WILKIE In VJG, the lawfulness of 38 C.F.R. 3.160 was chal- lenged as an unreasonable interpretation of 38 U.”
Cogburn v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 1232 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
· cites it 4× “Cogburn asserts that this court, in Adams , incorrectly relied upon 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) to demonstrate that formal and informal claims are indistinguishable.”
Betzaida P. Jernigan v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 220 (Vet. App. 2012).
· cites it 4× “Jernigan did not return the formal application form to establish her original claim, see 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (b), within one year of August 1995, the earliest possible effective date for her disability benefits was the date of her properly filed original claim, October 31, 2001.”
George T. Richardson v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 64 (Vet. App. 2006).
· cites it 4× “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (d) (2005) (defining a "finally adjudicated claim" as a claim "which has been allowed or disallowed by the agency of original jurisdiction, the action having become final by the expiration of 1 year after the date of notice of an award or disallowance, or…”
& Alfred R. Young v. Eric K. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 461 (Vet. App. 2009).
· cites it 2× “"); 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (e) (2008) (a claim to reopen is any claim for benefits received "after final disallowance of an earlier claim"); see also Muehl, supra (holding that the Board erred in determining that evidence submitted during the appeal period was a claim to reopen a…”
Williams v. Peake, 521 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
· cites it 2× “” 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2006). Consequently, Williams argued that his 1977 claim was not finally adjudicated and remained pending under section 3.”
Dennis W. Cogburn v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 205 (Vet. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2010). A claim will also remain pending if VA has failed to notify the claimant of the denial of the claim.”
Richard S. Brokowski v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 79 (Vet. App. 2009).
“” 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2008). Consistent with this regulation, this Court has held that “[a] reasonably raised claim remains pending until there is either a recognition of the substance of the claim in [an RO] decision from which a claimant could deduce that the claim was…”
Earlee King v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 464 (Vet. App. 2010).
· cites it 2× “See 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2009) ("pending claim" is "[a]n application, formal or informal, which has not been finally adjudicated"); see also Ingram v.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(a)(4) — 1 case
Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“WILKIE In VJG, the lawfulness of 38 C.F.R. 3.160 was chal- lenged as an unreasonable interpretation of 38 U.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(b) — 1 case
Sellers v. Wilkie, 965 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
“WILKIE In VJG, the lawfulness of 38 C.F.R. 3.160 was chal- lenged as an unreasonable interpretation of 38 U.”
— 38 C.F.R. § 3.160(c) — 1 case
Bean v. McDonough, 66 F.4th 979 (Fed. Cir. 2023).
“” 38 C.F.R. § 3.160 (c) (2006). Case: 22-1447 Document: 38 Page: 5 Filed: 04/26/2023 BEAN v.”
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.