C.F.R. » Title 38 » CHAPTER I—DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS › PART 3—ADJUDICATION › Subpart A—Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity Compensation

38 C.F.R. § 3.900

General

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

(a) Forfeiture of benefits based on one period of service does not affect entitlement to benefits based on a period of service beginning after the offense causing the prior forfeiture.

(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, any offense committed prior to January 1, 1959, may cause a forfeiture and any forfeiture in effect prior to January 1, 1959, will continue to be a bar on and after January 1, 1959.

(Authority: Section 3, Pub. L. 85-857)

(2) Effective September 2, 1959, forfeiture of benefits may not be declared except under the circumstances set forth in § 3.901(d), § 3.902(d), or § 3.903. Forfeitures declared before September 2, 1959, will continue to be a bar on and after that date.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103(d) and 6105)

(c) Pension or compensation payments are not subject to forfeiture because of violation of hospital rules.

(d) When the person primarily entitled has forfeited his or her rights by reason of fraud or a treasonable act determination as to the rights of any dependents of record to benefits under § 3.901(c) or § 3.902(c) may be made upon receipt of an application.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 6103(b) and 38 U.S.C. 6104(b)) [26 FR 1607, Feb. 24, 1961, as amended at 27 FR 8590, Aug. 28, 1962; 53 FR 17934, May 19, 1988]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 2 cases, 1996–2000 · leading case: Trilles v. West, 13 Vet. App. 314 (Vet. App. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Trilles v. West, 13 Vet. App. 314 (Vet. App. 2000). · cites it 4× “See 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.900 through 3.905 (1998) at Appendix.”
Tulingan v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 484 (Vet. App. 1996). “267, 278-79 (1991); see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.900 (1995), et. seq. (containing definitions, delegations of authority, and procedural guidelines but no evi-dentiary thresholds or decisional standards).”
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.