U.S. Code » Title 38 » Part PART V— BOARDS, ADMINISTRATIONS, AND SERVICES › Chapter CHAPTER 71— BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

38 U.S.C. § 7111

Revision of decisions on grounds of clear and unmistakable error

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 38 CasesGoogle Scholar
(a) A decision by the Board is subject to revision on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error. If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision shall be reversed or revised.(b) For the purposes of authorizing benefits, a rating or other adjudicative decision of the Board that constitutes a reversal or revision of a prior decision of the Board on the grounds of clear and unmistakable error has the same effect as if the decision had been made on the date of the prior decision.(c) Review to determine whether clear and unmistakable error exists in a case may be instituted by the Board on the Board’s own motion or upon request of the claimant.(d) A request for revision of a decision of the Board based on clear and unmistakable error may be made at any time after that decision is made.(e) Such a request shall be submitted directly to the Board and shall be decided by the Board on the merits.(f) A claim filed with the Secretary that requests reversal or revision of a previous Board decision due to clear and unmistakable error shall be considered to be a request to the Board under this section, and the Secretary shall promptly transmit any such request to the Board for its consideration under this section.(Added Pub. L. 105–111, § 1(b)(1), Nov. 21, 1997, 111 Stat. 2271; amended Pub. L. 115–55, § 2(v), Aug. 23, 2017, 131 Stat. 1113.)Editorial NotesAmendments

2017—Subsec. (e). Pub. L. 115–55 struck out “, without referral to any adjudicative or hearing official acting on behalf of the Secretary” after “merits”.

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

Section applicable to any determination made before, on, or after Nov. 21, 1997, see section 1(c)(1) of Pub. L. 105–111, set out as a note under section 5109A of this title.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 125 cases (19 in the last 5 years), 1997–2025 · leading case: Disabled Am. Vets. v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Disabled Am. Vets. v. Gober, 234 F.3d 682 (Fed. Cir. 2000). · cites it 45× “1 The regulations at issue constitute the rules of practice for seeking revision of a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) on the ground of clear and unmistakable error (“CUE”) under 38 U.S.C. § 7111 . Petitioners challenge the rules as having been issued without…”
Denise Jarrell v. R. James Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 326 (Vet. App. 2006). · cites it 8× “3d at 1520-21 , a prior decision can be reversed or revised based on CUE, 38 U.S.C. § 7111 ; Cook v. Principi, 318 F.”
Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534 (Vet. App. 2002). · cites it 8× “Finally, the appellant contends that the enactment of 38 U.S.C. § 7111 , permitting challenges to BVA decisions on the basis of CUE, requires a remand because the Board found, in its March 1997 decision, that Smith v.”
James R. Cook, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 318 F.3d 1334 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 3× “§ 5107 (a) (recognizing the VA’s duty to assist the claimant in the development of his claims) — that indicates that Congress intended to allow additional exceptions to the finality of VA decisions based upon “grave procedural error.”
Bruce E. Lane, Claimant-Appellant v. Anthony J. Principi, Sec'y of Vets. Affairs, 339 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2003). · cites it 4× “The Board noted that under 38 U.S.C. § 7111 (a), a Board decision is subject to revision on the grounds of CUE and must be reversed or revised if the evidence establishes such error.”
Joseph C. Hillyard v. Eric K. Shinseki, 24 Vet. App. 343 (Vet. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “Hillyard defines a “final decision” of the Board, pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7111 (c) and 38 C.F.R. § 20.1401 (a), as one that “has been mailed by the Board to the claimant following review by the Board based upon an allegation of clear and unmistakable error.”
Simmons v. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 104 (Vet. App. 2003). · cites it 5× “He asserted that the holding in Livesay is not dispositive of the CUE claim in this case because Livesay involved the assertion of CUE as to a Board decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7111 , whereas this case involves CUE as to an RO decision, which is governed by 38 U.”
George v. McDonough, 596 U.S. 740 (2022). · cites it 2× “” 38 U. S. C. §7111 . In particular, he claimed that the Board erred by applying a later invalidated regulation to deny his claim for benefits without holding the VA to its full burden of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of sound condi- tion.”
Robert J. May v. R. James Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 310 (Vet. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “38 U.S.C. § 7111 . Regulation § 20.1403(a) defines CUE in a prior BVA decision as follows: [CUE] is a very specific and rare kind of error.”
George v. McDonough, 991 F.3d 1227 (Fed. Cir. 2021). · cites it 3× “” See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7111 , 5109A. 4 In other words, a meritori- ous CUE claimant may be entitled to benefits retroactive to the date of the original claim.”
Randy L. Pederson v. Robert A. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 276 (Vet. App. 2015). · cites it 2× “2 A "review on the merits" is the Secretary's interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 7111 , found in 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.”
Timothy J. Jordan v. Anthony J. Principi, 17 Vet. App. 261 (Vet. App. 2003). · cites it 3× “In the November 1999 BVA decision here on appeal, the Board found that there was no CUE in the April 1983 Board decision and that, accordingly, that decision should not be revised or reversed under 38 U.S.C. § 7111 . R. at 9. Following oral argument before the Court, the Court…”
Show all 125 citing cases →
— 38 U.S.C. § 7111(a) — 2 cases
Tetro v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 100 (Vet. App. 2000).
Tetro v. West (Vet. App. 2000).
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.