38 U.S.C. § 6103

Forfeiture for fraud

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar

(a) Whoever knowingly makes or causes to be made or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits) shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by the Secretary (except laws pertaining to insurance benefits).(b) Whenever a veteran entitled to disability compensation has forfeited the right to such compensation under this section, the compensation payable but for the forfeiture shall thereafter be paid to the veteran’s spouse, children, and parents. Payments made to a spouse, children, and parents under the preceding sentence shall not exceed the amounts payable to each if the veteran had died from service-connected disability. No spouse, child, or parent who participated in the fraud for which forfeiture was imposed shall receive any payment by reason of this subsection. An apportionment award under this subsection may not be made in any case after September 1, 1959.(c) Forfeiture of benefits by a veteran shall not prohibit payment of the burial allowance, death compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or death pension in the event of the veteran’s death.(d)(1) After September 1, 1959, no forfeiture of benefits may be imposed under this section or section 6104 of this title upon any individual who was a resident of, or domiciled in, a State at the time the act or acts occurred on account of which benefits would, but not for this subsection, be forfeited unless such individual ceases to be a resident of, or domiciled in, a State before the expiration of the period during which criminal prosecution could be instituted. This subsection shall not apply with respect to (A) any forfeiture occurring before September 1, 1959, or (B) an act or acts which occurred in the Philippine Islands before July 4, 1946.(2) The Secretary is hereby authorized and directed to review all cases in which, because of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, a forfeiture of gratuitous benefits under laws administered by the Secretary was imposed, pursuant to this section or prior provisions of law, on or before September 1, 1959. In any such case in which the Secretary determines that the forfeiture would not have been imposed under the provisions of this section in effect after September 1, 1959, the Secretary shall remit the forfeiture, effective June 30, 1972. Benefits to which the individual concerned becomes eligible by virtue of any such remission may be awarded, upon application therefor, and the effective date of any award of compensation, dependency and indemnity compensation, or pension made in such a case shall be fixed in accordance with the provisions of section 5110(g) of this title.(Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1240, § 3503; Pub. L. 86–222, § 1, Sept. 1, 1959, 73 Stat. 452; Pub. L. 91–24, § 13(a), June 11, 1969, 83 Stat. 34; Pub. L. 92–328, title II, § 206, June 30, 1972, 86 Stat. 397; Pub. L. 98–160, title VII, § 703(6), Nov. 21, 1983, 97 Stat. 1011; Pub. L. 99–576, title VII, § 701(83), Oct. 28, 1986, 100 Stat. 3298; renumbered § 6103 and amended Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), (d)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238, 239; Pub. L. 102–54, § 14(d)(8), June 13, 1991, 105 Stat. 286; Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(1), (b)(1), (2)(E), Aug. 6, 1991, 105 Stat. 403–405; Pub. L. 103–446, title XII, § 1201(e)(18), (f)(5), Nov. 2, 1994, 108 Stat. 4686, 4687.)Editorial NotesAmendments

1994—Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 103–446, § 1201(e)(18), in second sentence substituted “(A) any” for “(a) any”, “(B) an act” for “(b) an act”, and “before July 4, 1946” for “prior to July 4, 1946”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 103–446, § 1201(f)(5), substituted “June 30, 1972” for “the date of enactment of this amendatory Act”.

1991—Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(b)(1), renumbered section 3503 of this title as this section.

Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(1), substituted “administered by the Secretary” for “administered by the Veterans’ Administration” in two places.

Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 102–54, § 14(d)(8)(A), amended subsec. (b) as in effect immediately before the enactment of Pub. L. 102–40 by inserting at end “An apportionment award under this subsection may not be made in any case after September 1, 1959.”

Subsec. (d)(1). Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “6104” for “3504”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(b)(1), (2)(E), substituted “Secretary” for “Administrator” in three places.

Pub. L. 102–83, § 4(a)(1), substituted “administered by the Secretary” for “administered by the Veterans’ Administration”.

Pub. L. 102–40, § 402(d)(1), substituted “5110(g)” for “3010(g)”.

Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 102–54, § 14(d)(8)(B), amended section as in effect immediately before the enactment of Pub. L. 102–40 by striking out subsec. (e) which read as follows: “No apportionment award under subsection (b) of this section shall be made in any case after the date of enactment of this subsection.”

1986—Subsec. (c). Pub. L. 99–576, § 701(83)(A), substituted “the veteran’s” for “his”.

Subsec. (d)(2). Pub. L. 99–576, § 701(83)(B), substituted “the Administrator” for “he” in two places in second sentence.

1983—Subsec. (b). Pub. L. 98–160 substituted “the right” for “his right”, “the veteran’s spouse” for “his wife”, and “spouse” for “wife” in two places.

1972—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 92–328 designated existing provisions as par. (1) and added par. (2).

1969—Subsec. (d). Pub. L. 91–24 substituted “September 1, 1959” for “the date of enactment of this subsection” wherever appearing.

1959—Subsecs. (d) and (e). Pub. L. 86–222 added subsecs. (d) and (e).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 1972 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 92–328 effective June 30, 1972, see section 301(c) of Pub. L. 92–328, set out as a note under section 3713 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 24 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1994–2023 · 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 32× “Trilles appeals a November 14, 1996, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that determined that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a decision under 38 U.S.C. § 6103 forfeiting her VA benefits (except insurance benefits).”

Flores v. Nicholson, 476 F.3d 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2007). · cites it 4× “Flores forfeited her rights to Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (a). Flores v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.”

John R. Ramsey Et Al. v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 16 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “at 321-24 (holding that language of 38 U.S.C. § 6103 is completely silent on forfeiture process and whether Congress intended that a section 6103 bar would result in forfeiture of procedural rights so as to prevent the affected person from ever revisiting or again contesting the…”

Flores v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 516 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 10× “under 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (a). The appellant filed an informal brief and the Secretary filed a brief in this case.”

Keith A. Roberts v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 416 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 8× “Subsequently, in response to a Court order, the parties filed supplemental memoranda of law regarding the relevance, if any, of the forfeiture provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (d)(1). 8 The Secretary contends that the Court is collaterally estopped from addressing whether Mr.”

Villeza v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 353 (Vet. App. 1996). · cites it 5× “Villeza, appeals an April 15, 1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) which denied a revocation of a previous forfeiture decision under 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (a). For the following reasons, the Court affirms the Board’s decision denying revocation of the…”

Pedro P. Del Rosario v. James B. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 399 (Vet. App. 2009). · cites it 6× “Del Rosario, appeals through counsel a May 15, 2006, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) determining that forfeiture of his benefits pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 6103 (a) was proper. Record (R.”

Villaruz v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 561 (Vet. App. 1995). · cites it 4× “IVERS, Judge: Ramon Rico Villaruz appeals a December 29, 1992, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) that a forfeiture declared against him under 38 U.S.C. §§ 6103 (a) and 6104(a) was not improper.”

United States v. Roberts, 534 F.3d 560 (7th Cir. 2008). “Roberts makes an additional, amorphous due process claim based on 38 U.S.C. § 6103 and 38 C.F.R. § 14.561 .”

Foster v. PPG Indus., Inc., 693 F.3d 1226 (10th Cir. 2012). “In the benefits context, we generally think of a benefit as “forfeited” where it disappears, to the employer’s or promisor’s gain, usually because of some prohibited action on the part of the employee/promisee.”

Trilles v. West, 12 Vet. App. 59 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 6× “Trilles appeals a November 14, 1996, Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) decision that determined that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a claim for revocation of the forfeiture of VA benefits (except insurance benefits) under the provisions of 38 U.S.C. §…”

Reyes v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 113 (Vet. App. 1994). · cites it 3× “IVERS, Judge: Baldomera vda de Reyes, the appellant, appeals a September 3,1993, decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA or Board) not to reopen a claim for revocation of the forfeiture of her rights to VA benefits (except insurance benefits) under the provisions of 38…”

Show all 24 citing cases →

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.