38 U.S.C. § 7103

Reconsideration; correction of obvious errors

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

(a) The decision of the Board determining a matter under section 7102 of this title is final unless the Chairman orders reconsideration of the decision in accordance with subsection (b). Such an order may be made on the Chairman’s initiative or upon motion of the claimant.(b)(1) Upon the order of the Chairman for reconsideration of the decision in a case, the case shall be referred—(A) in the case of a matter originally decided by a single member of the Board, to a panel of not less than three members of the Board; or(B) in the case of a matter originally decided by a panel of members of the Board, to an enlarged panel of the Board.(2) A panel referred to in paragraph (1) may not include the member, or any member of the panel, that made the decision subject to reconsideration.(3) A panel reconsidering a case under this subsection shall render its decision after reviewing the entire record before the Board. The decision of the panel shall be made by a majority vote of the members of the panel. The decision of the panel shall constitute the final decision of the Board.(c) The Board on its own motion may correct an obvious error in the record, without regard to whether there has been a motion or order for reconsideration.(Pub. L. 85–857, Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1241, § 4003; Pub. L. 100–687, div. A, title II, § 202(a), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4110; renumbered § 7103, Pub. L. 102–40, title IV, § 402(b)(1), May 7, 1991, 105 Stat. 238; Pub. L. 103–271, § 6(a), July 1, 1994, 108 Stat. 741; Pub. L. 115–55, § 2(o), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1111.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2017—Subsec. (b)(1). Pub. L. 115–55 substituted “decided” for “heard” in subpars. (A) and (B).

1994—Pub. L. 103–271 amended section generally. Prior to amendment, text read as follows:

“(a) Decisions by a section of the Board shall be made by a majority of the members of the section. The decision of the section is final unless the Chairman orders reconsideration of the case.

“(b) If the Chairman orders reconsideration in a case, the case shall upon reconsideration be heard by an expanded section of the Board. When a case is heard by an expanded section of the Board after such a motion for reconsideration, the decision of a majority of the members of the expanded section shall constitute the final decision of the Board.

“(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this section, the Board on its own motion may correct an obvious error in the record.”

1991—Pub. L. 102–40 renumbered section 4003 of this title as this section.

1988—Pub. L. 100–687, in amending section generally, added subsec. (a), struck out former subsec. (a) which provided that determination of section, when unanimous, be final determination of Board, added subsec. (b), struck out former subsec. (b) which provided that when there is disagreement among members of section, concurrence of Chairman with majority of members of section shall constitute final determination of Board, and added subsec. (c).

Statutory Notes and Related SubsidiariesEffective Date of 2017 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 115–55 applicable to all claims for which the Secretary of Veterans Affairs provides notice of a decision under section 5104 of this title on or after the later of 540 days after Aug. 23, 2017, or 30 days after the date on which the Secretary submits to Congress a certification of certain capabilities of the Department of Veterans Affairs to carry out the new appeals system established by Pub. L. 115–55 and to address appeals of decisions on legacy claims, with provision for early applicability of the new appeals system to certain claims, see section 2(x) of Pub. L. 115–55, set out as a note under section 101 of this title, and bracketed note thereunder.

Effective Date of 1988 Amendment

Amendment by Pub. L. 100–687 effective Jan. 1, 1989, see section 401(d) of Pub. L. 100–687, set out as an Effective Date note under section 7251 of this title.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 90 cases (8 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: David J. Harms v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238 (Vet. App. 2006).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

David J. Harms v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 238 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 16× “See 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a) ("The decision of the Board .”

Rita L. Dicarlo v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 52 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 5× “The Chairman of the Board may grant reconsideration of a Board decision, see 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a); Wachter v. Brown, 7 Vet.”

Denise Jarrell v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 4× “156 (a) (2005), or the Board may sua sponte, regardless of any motion for reconsideration, correct obvious errors, see 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (c); Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet.”

Loran L. Hayslip, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, Respondent-Cross-Appellant, 364 F.3d 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2004). · cites it 9× “We reverse the order and remand because the court erred when it applied the VCAA retroactively to a proceeding that was final pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a). Background Hayslip’s appeal arises from a June 1998 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (“agency”)…”

Hazan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 511 (Vet. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “He also argues that 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (c) requires the BVA to reconsider the “obvious error” involved in its failing to account for his 1989 hearing testimony in determining the effective date for his increased rating for CDD.”

William R. Young v. Eric K. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 201 (Vet. App. 2012). · cites it 4× “38 U.S.C. § 7103 . 2 332 (2006) (en banc) (emphasis added); see also id.”

William A. Smith, Claimant-Appellee v. Jesse Brown, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 35 F.3d 1516 (Fed. Cir. 1994). · cites it 2× “38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a) (Supp. IV 1992). The finality of a Board decision of eourse may be disturbed on appeal to the Veterans Court, which reviews questions of law de novo, 38 U.”

Donovan v. Gober, 10 Vet. App. 404 (Vet. App. 1997). · cites it 5× “See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7103 (a) [sic]. When a claim is disallowed by the BVA, the claim may not thereafter be reopened and allowed, except upon receipt of new and material evidence, and a claim based on the same factual basis may not be considered.”

Henderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 11 (Vet. App. 1998). · cites it 3× “38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a), (b), (c). Section 512(a) of title 38, United States Code, provides: Except as otherwise provided by law, the Secretary may assign functions and duties, and delegate, or authorize successive redelegation of, authority to act and to render decisions, with…”

Michael Seri v. R. James Nicholson, 21 Vet. App. 441 (Vet. App. 2007). · cites it 4× “2 The Board has original jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (c) to review and correct the record for obvious error; however, the Board's statement with regard to the psychiatric disorder claim contained no correction of obvious error, thus demonstrating that it was not…”

Robert J. May v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 310 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 2× “As to the abatement of the finality of a Board decision, 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (a) provides: § 7103. Reconsideration; correction of obvious errors (a) The decision of the Board determining a matter under section 7102 of this title is final unless the Chairman orders reconsideration…”

Robert v. Posey v. Eric K. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 406 (Vet. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “Another option–one that would preserve the important distinction between the Court and VA–would be for Congress to amend 38 U.S.C. § 7103 (governing reconsideration of Board decisions) or 38 U.”

Show all 90 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.