UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 98-48
M A CK A. M C C O RM I CK , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. H ER SH EL W. G OBER , A C TI NG S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued Jul y

11, 2000 Dec ided Aug ust 18, 2000 )

Pe te r J . M e ad ows , o f Wi nte r P ark , F lor ida , f or the a pp e lla nt. Monique Allen , with whom Leigh A. Bradle y, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , Assistant Gene ral Counsel; and J

oa n E . M or iar ity , Deputy Assistant G ener al, all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

, for the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : T he a

pp e lla nt, Ko re an Co nf

lic t vet e ra n M a c k A . M c Cor

mic k, a pp e a ls throug h counsel a De ce m b er 16, 1997, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (BV A or B oard) decision that denied a s not w ell g rounded his c laim f or Depa rtment of Veter ans Aff

airs (V A) ser

vice c onnection for loss of vision. Record ( R.) at 2. The a ppellant f i l ed an i nformal br ief a

nd a re ply , and the Secre tary filed a m o ti o n

for sing le-judg e af

firmanc e. Subsequently , counsel for the appe llant entere d an appe ara

nce a nd was pe rmitted to submit an additional brie f, to which th e S ec re t ary has filed a response . This appea l is ti mely , and the Court has j urisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) and 7266(a) . For

the reasons that follow, the Court will deny the Secr etar

y ' s motion and vacate the B VA decision and r emand the matter.2 I. Bac kgr ound The ve te r anh a d

a c ti v e s e r

v ic e in th e U

. S. A r

my f r o m O c to b e r

1 9 5 3 to O c to b e r

1955, including se rvice in Korea . R. at 9. The re cord on a ppeal ( ROA) contains Fe bruar y 1955 service

me dic a l r e c or ds (S MRs ) t hat de sc ri be d treatme nt f or a ri g ht- wr ist

fr a c tur e . R. a t 13 -1 5. Hi s sepa ratio n e xami natio n me dic a l r e c or d d e sc ri be d h is e y e s a s " no rm a l" and ind ic a te d th a t hi s
un c or re c te d v isi on

wa s " 20 /20 " . R. a t 11 . N o o the r S MRs are c on ta ine d in the RO A, and

the re is

no rec ord of subsequent National Guar d service , althoug h it seems clear that the vetera n had such service

. See , e.g. , R. at 56 (statemen t s fr o m p er s o ns who serve d with vetera n in "United States Natio na l G ua

rd " in 1 95 6) ; R. a t 67 (a ff ida vit fr om v e te ra

n' s " un it c omm and er whi le he w a s a member of

the Flor ida National Gua rd" ). I n April 1978, the VA reg ional office (RO) in St. Petersburg , Florida , appar ently sent to the Na t i o n al P er s o n n el R ec o r d s C e n t e r(N P R C ) a "R eq u es tfo r Inf o rm at i o n ". R

. at 1 9

. T h e N P R C 's

res po ns e in di cat ed t hat in 19 78 th ere wer e "[ n] o m edi cal re c ord s o n fi le a t N P RC " ( ibid. ) and on A p r il 2 1 , 1 9 7 8 , th e V A RO s e n t t o th e v e te r ana le tt e r th a t s tate d : " Due to the fire a t t h e [N PR C] , there may be a de lay

in obtaining your [SM Rs] ." Supplementa l (Suppl.) R. at 13. I n Fe bruar

y 1995, the veter an submi t t ed to the RO a cla im based on an a sserted " loss of vis ion a s a re su lt o f havin g pink e y e wh ile statio ne d at F or t B e nn ing [, G e or g ia .]" R. at 21 . In Apr il 1995, the RO sent to the veteran a letter stating: "B eca use of the longperiod of time that ha s elapsed sin c e y our d isc harg e fr om m ili tary se rv ic e , y our [SM Rs] ma y be dif fi c ult if no t im po ssi ble to obtain." R

. at 4 2

. T h e RO reque sted that the vete ran pr ovide evidenc e of a ny or ea ch of the fo llo wi ng : " [T]r e a tme nt i n s e rv ic e " fo r h is c la ime d c on dit ion ; detail s reg ard ingthe " fu ll org anizational desig nation . . . to which [ he was] assig ned at the t ime that the" claimed c ondition was

" inc ur re d o r a g g ra

vate d" ; c op ie s o f a

ny SMRs in h is p os se ssi on; " [s]ta te me nts fr om p e rs on s w ith wh om" he ha d s e rv e d o r f ro m fa mil y me mbe rs ; and me dic a l re c or ds " to d e mon str a te

. . . c on tin uit y of treatment" since service

. Ibid. The RO did not advis e the ve tera n that his SMR s had bee n destroy ed by

fire. See R. at 42-43. I n J une 1995, the RO obtaine d a re lease from the ve tera n and soug ht copies of any medical recor ds in the pos session of t he Fort Be nning Army Hospital (R. at 49), which re sponded that " [t ]he requeste d medical r ecor ds ha[d] been retired to [t he NPR C] " (R. at 50). The Sec retary

conce ded at or al ar g ument that the RO did not therea fter " follow up" by contac ting3

the NPRC for those or any other re cords located there

. Se e als o R. at 5 (B VA dec ision noti ng that "[a]lthough the [NPRC ] repor ted i n 1978 that the veteran' s [S MRs] had been i nvolved i n the fire at that fac ility , the veter an' s claims folder inc ludes a c opy of his examination for rele ase f rom ac tive duty in 1955")

. I n Aug ust 1995, the RO determined f or the followingrea son that the veter an' s claim was not well g rounded: "[SMRs] are completely silent for complaints, treatment[ ,] or diagnosis of a ny pink ey e." R. at 23. (The Court a ssumes that the SMRs refer red to by the RO were the Fe bruar y 1955 SMRs (R. at 13-15) and the SMR of his separation medica l examination (R. at 11) contained in the ROA, notwithstanding that the RO decision l isted as t he evidence before it "[SMR s] for the period 10 -2 5- 53 to 1 0- 05 -5 5" (R . at 23 ), be c a us e no oth e r SMRs a

pp e ar in the RO A, be c a

us e the B VAdid not addre ss any

other SMRs, a

nd beca use the parties have not sug g ested that any other SMRs are of

rec ord to date.) L ater that month, the veteran submitted additional rec ent medica l evidence in the fo rm of Marc h a nd Ap ri l 19 93 VA me dic a l re c or ds that dia g no se d p re sb y op ia of the le ft e y e , e a rl y cata rac ts, and a re mote corne a sc ar of the rig ht ey e. R. at 28-32. In October 1995, the RO issued

a second decision denying his c laim a s not w ell g rounded (R. at 38-39) and, later that m o n t h , t he veter an s ub mit te d a

state me nt i n w hic h h e a sse rt e d th a t " pink e y e de ve lop e d in NC OS l e a de rs hip

sc ho ol" a t Fo rt

B e nn ingand

that he ha d " ha d to we ar g la sse s si nc e that ti me " . R. a t 53 . H e a lso stated: " Ag g ravation of that condition was ca used by night- driving

. . . and welding, c utting[,] and torching at the shop/Ft. B enning , GA. (1953, 1954, 1955 time fr ame) ". Ib id

. I n November

1995, he submitted a statement sig ned by three people who aver

red that they had ser ved with him "in the United S t at es Na t i o n al Guar d . . . during the y ear 1956" a nd that he "w ore pr escr iption glasses dur ing [that] ti me per iod". R. at 56. L ater that month, Dr. Hazouri, a private opthamologist, submitt ed a statement t hat he had ex amined the ve tera n in Aug ust 1993 and had found that his "[c]orrecta ble vision was 20/20 on the rig ht a nd 20/25 on the left" , that "[o]cular tensions were normal" , and that " [c] atar acts we re prese nt". R. at 59. Attache d there to were copies of Dr. H azouri' s medical rec ords showing treatment in Ma rch 1982, Ma

y 1989, Aug ust 1993, and October 1995. R. at 61-62. Also in November 1995, the veter an subm itted four state ments from lay pe rs on s ( R. at 64 -6 7) , in c lud ingon e fr om a c olo ne l w ho stat ed that

he wa s th e ve te ra

n' s " un it4

commander

while he wa s a member

of the F lorida National Guard a nd at that time . . . he had a restric tion to wear g lasses on his operators permit" . R. at 67. I n Apr il 1 99 6, the ve te ra n te sti fi e d und e r o a th b e fo re the RO that he had had pinke y e in service . R. at 74-75. He stated that he ha d been told to wear d ark g lasses and ha d "be en we aring dark g lasses ever since then"

. R. at 75. H e also stated that "e ver since " he was in the ser vice he had ha d p ink e y e
. R. at 76

. At the he ari ng , the ve te ra n su bmi tte d pr ivate me dic a l r e c or ds date d in Ap ri l 1996 that diag nosed mild catara cts of both e y es. R. at 86- 87. I n his Substantive Appea l to the B VA, the ve te ra n " no te d" that his "c omp le te [SMRs ] are un a va ila ble fo r re vie w as the y we re a ssume d to have be en destroy ed by the fire at the [NP RC] in 1973." R. at 94. In the Dec ember 16, 1997, BV A decision her e on appe al, the B oard de nied as not we ll gr ounded the ve t er an' s claim for se rvice

connec tion for loss of vision due to pinkey e. R. at 2. At oral a

rg ument on J uly

11, 2000, the Secr et ary ag ree d to submit a supplementa l memorandum re g arding(1) th e s t at u s of a pr oposed ame ndment to 38 C.F.R. § 3.159 (1999) (r e g ard ingVA ' s d

uty to a ssi st c la ima

nts ) a nd (2 ) the a

uth or ity of

the Un de r S e c re tary

fo r B e ne fi ts to issue the Aug ust 1999 letter discussed in pa rt I I .B., below. He submitt ed response s on J uly 14, 2 0 0 0 , an d J u l y 2 8 , 2 0 0 0 , o nt h e s e t o p i c s , r e s p e c t i v e l y.

II. Ana lys is

" [A] pe rs on

wh o s ub mit s a

c la im fo r be ne fi ts und e r a law a dmi nis te re d b y the Se c re tary

sh a ll have the burden of submitt ing evidenc e sufficie nt to justify a belief by a fa ir and impartial individual that th e c la im i s w e ll g ro un de d. " 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7( a ). A we ll- g ro un de d c la im is " a pla us ibl e c la im, one whic h i s m er itorious on its own or c apable of substantiation. Such a cla im need not be

con clu si ve but on ly po ss ib le to sat is fy th e in it ial bu rden of [ sect io n 5 10 7(a) ] ." Murphy v . Derwinski , 1 V e t.A pp
. 78 , 81 (1 99 0)

. F or a se rv ic e -c on ne c tio n c la im (h e re un de r 38 U. S.C. § 1 11 0) to b e we ll g rounded, the re g ener ally

must be (1) medic al evidenc e of a curr ent di sability ; (2) medic al evidenc e, or in ce rta in c ir c u ms ta

n c e s la y e v id e n c e , o f in

- s e r

v ic e in c u r

r e n c e o r a g g r a v a ti o n o f a d is e a s e or injury ; and (3) me dical evide nce of a nexus betwee n the asser ted in-ser vice injury

or disease and the

curr ent disability

. See Cal uz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995), aff' d per curiam , 78 F.3d 604 (F e d. Cir . 199 6) ( tab le) ; se e als o E lk ins v . W e st , 12 Vet.App. 209, 213 ( 1999) (e n banc) (citing5

Cal uz a , su

pra , and Epps v. Gobe r , 1 2 6 F. 3 d 1464, 1468 (F ed. Cir. 1997) (e x pressly adopting definition of well-g rounded c lai m s et forth in Cal uz a , su pra )). This evide nce a s to these three Cal uz a e le me nts ne e d me e t on ly a thr e sh old that is " ' un iqu e and un iqu e ly low ' " in or de r to sho w w e ll groun ded nes s; th at i s, th e "clai m need on ly be 'pl aus ib le'." Be c k

v . W est , __ Vet.App. __, __, No. 97-1884, 2000 WL 819397, at *5 (J u n e 27 , 2 0 0 0 ) ( qu o t i n g He ns le yv . W est , 212 F.3d 1255, 1261- 62 (F ed. Cir. 2000)). I n th is c a se , th e B oa

rd de nie d the ve te ra

n' s cla im as no t w e ll g ro un de d a nd , in so do ing , d id not r equire that the RO reque st copies of the ve tera n' s SMR s from the NPRC. The B oard c oncluded "that the veter an has not pr esente d a well-g rounded or plausible claim with r esp ec t t o service

co n n ec t i o nfo r d ef

ec t i v e v i s i o n
. " R

. at 5

. T h e Bo ar d al s o s t at ed : "A s a c o n s eq u en ce [ o f t h e v et er an 's not having submitt ed a w ell-g rounded c laim] , no duty to assist the vetera

n [was] trig g ered under 38 U.S.C

. § 5107." R. at 5-6. The a ppellant does not, in essenc e, cha lleng e the B oard' s neg ative deter mination on well gr oundedness, a nd, in view of the Court' s holding in par t I I .B., be low, we ne ed not reviewthat deter

mination. A. Manual M21-1 Ar gum ents Th e a pp e lla nt' s p ri mary

c on te nti on

is ba se d on wh a t he a sse rt s is VA ' s f a ilure to f ulf ill c e rt a in duties arising from provisions set fort h in the VA Adjudication Procedure Manual, M21-1 [hereinaf ter Manual M21-1] re lating to the adjudication of case s where SMRs have be en destroy ed in th e 1 9 7 3 N PR C f

ire [ here in a f

te r r e f e r r e d to c o ll e c ti v e ly

a s th e f ir e - r e late d

- c a s e p r o v is io n s ]. Appel lant' s A dd iti on a l B ri e f at 5- 14 . T he Se c re tary c ounte rs that, b e c a

us e the fi re -r e la te d- c a se provisions are r aised for

the first time befor e the Court and were not raised to the B VA, " the Court

s h o u l d d ec l i n e t o e x e r c i s e i t s j u ri s d i ct i o nt o co n s i d er
. . . o nap p el l at e r ev i ew " t h e ap p el l an t 's arguments based on the f

ire-r elated- case provisions, and urg es the Court to aff irm the BV A dec ision on the g round that the ve tera n failed to e x haust his administrati v e remedy as to those Manua l M21-1-b as edar gu m en t s
. S ec re t ary 's R es p o n s e a t4 (c i t i n g Stu c k e yv . W est , 1 3 Ve t

. Ap p
. 1 6 3 (1 9 9 9 )).

R ec en t l y , i n Ma

gg itt v . W est , the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (F eder al Cir c uit ) h e ld t

hat th is C ourt

" may he ar l e g a l argume nts ra ise d fo r the fi rs t tim e wi th re g ard to a c la im6

th at i s p r o p e rl y

befo re t he co urt , [ bu t] it is no t co mp ell ed t o d o s o i n ev ery in st ance. " Ma

gg itt , 20 2 F .3 d 1 37 0, 13 77 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 0) . T he F e de ra l Cir c uit e xpla ine d: [W]he the r t o invo ke the e xha us tio n o f a dmi nis tr a ti ve re me die s d oc tr ine a g a ins t a party -- with the e ffe ct that the par ty ' s arguments g o unhear d -- is ca se-specific. [ McCarthy v. Madigan , 5 03 U. S. 1 40 ,] 14 6 [( 19 92 )]. Th e te st i s w he the r t he int e re sts of the ind ivi du a l w e ig h he a vil y a g a ins t the ins tit uti on a l in te re sts the do c tr ine e xists to serve. Se e id . Those instituti onal i n t er est s are , in the main, to protect a g ency administrative authority and to pr omote judicial eff iciency

. See id. at 145. . . . I f an ag ency self-c orre cts and amends its wa y s
. . . , judicial resour ces a re c onserve d. See id. An d e ve n if

the a g e nc y

re je c ts the ind ivi du a l' s argume nts , in so me ins tanc e s a better rec ord is ma de for appellate revie w of the ag ency decision. See id. at 145-[4] 6. Ma gg itt , 2 02 F .3 d a t 13 70

. Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit le ft fo r thi s Court to re so lve wh e the r, a s a ru le , to
rema nd, addre ss, or ref

use to hea r ar g uments first raised to this Court, r easoning"th[at this] Court is uniquely

positioned to ba lance and decide the considerations re g arding exhaustion i n a par ticular

case , and that, over time, it will de velop of [si c] body of law in its unique setting that will pe rmit [ a]

com parabl e cert ain ty

in ou tco me [ to th at] th at h a s o c c u r r e d i n o th er fi eld s o f l aw. " Id. at 1378. Today , we take the first step towar d cre ating that "body of law"

. Ibid. I n this case, the a

ppellant did in fac t raise a rg ument to the BV A base d on the Manua l M21-1; howeve r, he did not raise to the BVA t he fire -re lated-c ase pr ovisions of the Manual M21-1 that he

now ra ises to this C ourt. Com pa re R. at 6 (B VA decision reg arding Manual M21-1 provisions raised to it) with Ap pe lla

nt' s A dd iti on a l B ri e f at 7- 8 ( ra isi ngargume nt r e g ard ingfi re -r e lated -cas e pr ov isi on s) and

Appellant' s Response to J une 28, 2000, Court Orde r (pr oviding c opies of fi re -r e la te d-case prov isi on s) . Re vie w o f t he a pp e lla nt' s argume nts ba se d o n th e fi re -r e la te d- c a se pr ov isi on s r e qu ir e s in qu ir y a s to a t le a st the fo llo wi ngfo ur qu e sti on s: (1 ) We re the Manu a l M2 1- 1 f ir e -r e la te d- c a se pr ov isi on s in e ff e c t at an y tim e d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e o f

th e a d j u d i c a t i o no f

t h i s c a s e ? Cf. Fugere v. D erwinski , 1 Vet.App. 103, 109 ( 1990) (without adhe renc e to Administrative P ro cedur e Ac t notice-a nd-comment proc ess and spe cific notice to public of intent to revoke Manual M21-1 provision protec ting be nefit entitlement, Secr etar y cannot r ev oke that provision). (2) I f so, wer e those provisions authorized by 38 U.S.C. § 5 1 0 7 (a ) or a ny o t h e r l aw f u l a u t h o r i t y ( s u c h a s s e c t i o n5 1 0 3 ( a ) ) ?7 (3 ) I f t he fi re -r e la te d- c a se pr ov isi on s w e re a uth or ize d b y

law, we re tho se provisions applicable to this case ? ( 4 ) I f s o , w e r e t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s c o mp l i e d w i t h i nt h i s c a s e ? T h e C o u rt b el i ev es t h at BV A d et er m i n at i o n s o n t h es e fo u r qu es t i o n s wo u l d b e h el p fu l t o t h e C o u rt 's revie w of this matter a

nd, further , that the first and third of these que stions ar e peculiar ly within the competenc e of V A to addre ss. Henc e, we will va cate the BV A dec ision and remand this matter f or consideration by

the BVA of the a

ppellant' s arguments based on the f ire-r elated- case s provisions and of, inter a lia, the above four que stions. A remand will likely benef it the Court by producing "a better

rec ord . . . for

appellate revie w of the ag ency decision" and, fur ther, may result in the " ag ency

selfcorr ect[ing] and ame nd[i ng ] i ts way s", w hich, in turn, would " protec t agency administrative aut ho ri ty " regardi ng th e in ter pret ati on of i ts own is su ances as wel l as "pro mo te j ud ici al e ffi cie ncy ". Ma gg itt , su pra . The Court notes, howe ver, that if the veteran' s claim is found to be we ll gr ounded bas ed o n i mm edi ate dev elo pm ent as a r esu lt of t he re man d t hat wi ll be o rder ed p urs uan t t o p art I I .B. of this opinion, then the question of the applicability of the fire -re lated-c ase pr ovisions, at least at the well-g roundedne ss stag e, would bec ome moot. B. V BA Letter 20-99-60 I n addition, the parties have addr essed at leng th an Aug ust 30, 1999, issuan ce o f the VA Veter ans B enef

its Admini strati on, captioned " VB A L etter 20- 99-60" and sig ned by the Under Secre tary for Be nefits, reg arding "[c]laims [t] hat [a] re [n] ot [ w]ell-[ g ]rounded". Aug ust 30, 1999, VB A L e tte r 2 0- 99 -6 0 [he re ina ft e r g e ne ra lly re fe rr e d to a s V B A L e tte r]. Th a t le tte r w a s w ri tte n in response to the Court's opinion in Mo rto n v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 477 ( 1999), en banc revie w denied , 13 Vet.App. 205 ( 1999), appeal dock eted , No. 99-7191 (F ed. Cir. Sept. 15, 1999). I t states under

" Ne w Po lic y " a s f

oll ow s: Determin e Wel l- Grou n d ed n ess & Cl ai mant N oti f ic at ion : E f

f e c t i v e i m m e d i a t e l y, eac h [R O] must d eter

mine if a c laim is well[ ]grounde d prior to beg inning development of

evidenc e. The re ma

y be multiple iss u es in ea ch application for c omp e ns a tio n. Ea c h in div idu a l is su e mus t be re vie we d to de te rm ine if it i s well[ ] g rounded. I f any particula r issue is not well[ ]gr ounded, the [RO] must send the claimant a

let t er d escribing the e vidence neede d to establish a well-g rounded c la im. Dr a ft

sampl e le tte rs are e nc los e d f or y our r e vie w a

nd c omm e nts

.8

Im m ediate De velopm ent: [S MRs] and VA me dical ce nter re co rd s ar e to be re qu e ste d in

a ll c a se s. Th e se re c or ds are c on sid e re d to be in V A c us tod y . Pr ivate medical r ecor ds or re cords f rom other F eder al or State a g encies are not in VA c us tod y and wi ll n ot b e re qu e ste d p ri or to a de te rmin ati on

that th e c la im i s well[ ] g rounded. VB A L e tte r, a t 1. I n oth e r wo rd s, the VB A L e tte r pr ov ide s that, a lth ou g h " e ach [ RO ] mu st deter mine if a c laim is well[ ] gro u n d ed prior to be g inning de velopment of e vidence ", V A has

u nderta ken an " I m m e d i a t e D e v e l o pm e nt " oblig ation to reque st SMR s and re cords f rom VA medic al cent ers "in all case s" be caus e "[ t] hes e reco rds are co ns id eredto be i n VA cus to dy ." Ibid. The a ppellant' s arguments based on the V BAL ett e r I mm e d ia te D e v e lo p me nt provisions have not y et been raised to the BVA. Howeve r, at oral arg ument, the S ecr etar y ' s repr esentative asser

ted that this letter constitutes a VA dire ctive that is b i n d i n g on its ROs. I n addition, we note that the Secre tary has propose d a reg ulation that would require ROs to undertake the ac tions directed by the VB A L etter Immediate De velopment provisions. See Well-Grounded Claims, 64 Fe d. Reg . 67,528, 67 ,5 31 (1 99 9) (t o b e c od if ie d at 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 59 (b )( 2) ) ( VA" pr op os e s to a uth or ize VAto r e qu e st [S MRs] in claims for ser

vice- connec ted disability

. . . wher e they

have not alrea dy

been a ssociated wi th the claims file" beca use " in some case s, [S MRs] may contain evide nce that will well gr ound

cer tain elements of a claim"); Unified Ag enda, 5 Fed. Re g . 23,401, 23,405 (2000) ( final ac tion was

sc he du le d f

or " 6/0 0/0 0" ). Thus , V A' s p os iti on a s to the bin din g natur e of the VB A L e tte r I mme diate Deve lopment provisions is clear. More over, at or al argument the Secre tary ' s repr esentative took a position as to the statutory authority for that VAissuance, w hich we w ill dis cuss in detail below. The Court does not find that ther e is a ne ed for p ri o r Board re view of this matter be cause , unlike wi t h re s p ec t to the fire- related-c ase pr ovisions, it is clear that the VB A L etter is a c urre nt document, that VA intende d that the document be binding on its ROs, that the S ecr etar y has take n a position a s to the statutory authority for the duties set forth in that document, and that that position is binding on the B VA. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(c) (B VA bound by instructions of S ecr etar y ). He nce, the Cou rt c a n s e e lit tle be ne fi t that wo uld fl ow fr om a re mand of thi s is su e to t

he B VA , in

c on tr a st to our conc lusi o n reg ardingthe fire -re lated-c ase pr ovisions, and we will proce ed to deter mine whether the I mmediate De velopment portion of the VB A L etter ha s the forc e of la w. Se e Ma

gg itt , supra ; c f. F le sh ma n v . W

est , 138 F.3d 1429 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998), cert. de nied , 5 2 5 U

. S. 9 4 7 (1998)9

(" revie wing court . . . [ may ] affirm[ ] an ag ency decision on a g round diffe rent fr om the one used by t h e age ncy

if the newg round is not one that ca lls for ' a dete rmination or judg ment which an administrative ag ency

alone is authorized to make'

. . . . [or] it is clea r that ' the ag ency

would have

rea ched the same ultimate re sult' ha d it considered the new g round" (citations omitted)). At the outset, we note that althoug h the Secr etar y ' s position t aken at oral ar g ument that the VB A L etter I mmediate Deve lopment pr ovisions we re intended to ha ve binding eff

ect on the R Os to whom it was direc ted is pe rsuasive, his position is not dispositi ve bec ause " ' [t ]he particular label place d upon [an ag ency issuance] by the [ag ency ] i s not nece ssarily conclusive, f

or it is the substance of w hat th e [ agency ] has pu rpo rt ed t o do and has don e wh ich is deci si ve. '" Fu ge re , 1 Vet.App. at 106 (quot i n g Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v . United States , 316 U.S. 407, 416 (1942) (c itatio ns omi tte d) ); see al s o S ch u ler Indus. v. U

nited States , 109 F.3d 753, 755 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997) (d isc us sin g , in te r a lia , w he the r " the Se c ret ary [ of the Tr e a sury ] vie we d h is s ta tut or y a uth or ity [to issue regulations] as l imited to interpre tation" for purposes of determining whether r eg ulation issued by him was substantive in nature)

. Whether or not the VB A L etter I mmediate De velopment provisions have the forc e of la w and thus created a duty that is enfor cea ble aga inst the S ecr etar

y in this Court depends upon w hether the document is proper ly

considere d to be a substantive or mere ly interpre tative administrative issuance

. I n Fu ge re , the Court he ld that a Manual M21-1 pr ovision that "did not merely clar ify or explain an

e x i s t i n g r u l e o r s t a tu t e " w a s s u

b s t an t i v e , f

o r t h e p u r p o s e o f b e i n g e n f o r c e a b l e a g a i n s tt h e S e c r e t a r

y, because it had " the forc e of la w and na rrowly limit [ed] administrative ac tion", and " presc ribe[d] what ac tion must be take n in the initial levels of adjudication". Fu ge re , 1 Vet.App. at 107 (internal quotation omitt ed; citing , inter alia, Guardian Federal Sav ings & Loan A s s ' n v. FSLIC , 589 F.2d 65 8, 66 6- 67 (D .C. Cir . 1 97 8) ); se e als o P araly ze d V e te ra ns of A me ric a v . W

est , 138 F.3d 1434, 1435 (F ed. Cir. 199 8 ) (" case law has de fined ' substantive rules' as those that ef fec t a cha ng e in exist ing law o r p oli c y

or wh ic h a ff e c t in div idu a l r ig hts and

ob lig a tio ns " ); Guardian Federal , 589 F.2d at 664 (" an interpr etative r

ule is merely

a cla rification or explanation of an existi ng statute or rule ") . The Court noted t hat t he Manual M21-1 provisi on at i ssue in Fu ge re was " more than a

mere proce dural g uid e lin e " and

that " its pla c e me nt i n a

pr oc e dura l ma

nu a l [di d ]not d isguis e its tr ue natur e a s a
su bs tan ti ve ru le. " Ibid.10

I n a dd iti on , th e Court

ha s r e c og nize d th a t an a dmi nis tr a tiv e iss ua nc e c an b e su

bs tanti ve on ly when the action that the rule require s is lawfully authorized by statute. See M

orton , 12 Vet.App. at 48 1. Simi larl y , a

su bs tanti ve ru le c ann ot exce ed the authority g rante d by

statute. See, e .g., Boye r
v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 142, 144 (1999) (" to the extent that any Manual M21-1 provision might attempt to authorize a rating for non-ser vice- connec ted hear ing short of total dea fness in both ea rs, such a pr ov isi on wo uld be inc on sis te nt wit h th e fr a me wo rk

of the 38 U. S.C. §§ 11 10 and 11 31 [pr ov isi on s]

and wo uld be un lawf

ul" ). F or the fo llo wi ng re a so ns , w e c on c lud e that th e VB A L e tte r Imme diate Deve lopment pr o v i s i o n s m eet the above c riteria a nd are substantive in nature, a nd thus are

e n f o r c e a b l e i nt h i s C o u rta g a i n s tt h e S e c r e t ar y. As to t he st atut or

y a uth or ity fo r t he a c tio n o rd e re d b y

the VB A L e tte r Imme diate Deve lopment provisions, at oral ar g ument the Secr etar y ' s repr esentative stated

th at that authority

lies in 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 07 (a ), wh ic h p ro vid e s: " Exc e pt w he n ot

herw is e pr ovi ded

by the Se c re tar y in

ac c orda nc e with the

pr ov isions of

this tit le , a person who submits a claim for benef its unde r a la

w
a d m i n i s t e r e d

b y t h e S e c r e t ar

y s h a l l h a v e t h e b u r d e n

o f s u b m i t t i n g e v i d e n c e s u f

f i c i e n tt o j u s t i f

y a belief by a fa ir and impartial indivi dual that the cla im is well grounde d." 38 U .S.C. § 5107(a) (empha sis added). The "Ex cept" clause , acc ording to the Secre tary , forms the ba sis for the nar row direc tion se t f

orth in the VB A L etter I mmediate Deve lopment pr ovisions that ROs r eques t copies of both SMRs and VA medical r ecor ds in all cases, e ven prior to the submission of a we ll-g rounded claim. " I n Che v ro n v . Na tural R eso ur c es D e fe ns e Cou nc il , [467 U.S

. 837, 843 (1984),] the United States Supreme Court re cog nized that Congre ss frequ ently leave s cer

tain details unspecif

ied in a statut or y sc he me , a

nd de le g a te s r

ule makin g a

uth or ity to an a g e nc y to fi ll in the de ta ils ne c e ssa ry to adm in is ter

th e st atu te. " Tril le

s v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 314, 323 ( 2000) (e n banc) . "[A]n interpretation of a statute by

the administrative ag ency char g ed with a dminist eringit is entit led to defe renc e to the extent that the admini strative construction, whether rea ched by adjudication or by rulemaking , is not inc on sis te nt wit h th e stat uto ry mand a te and

do e s n ot f

ru str a te the po lic y

that Co ng re ss s ou g ht t o im pl eme nt ." He rm og e ne s v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 75, 78 ( 1996) (c itin g Fed. Ele c ti o n Co m m 'n v. Democratic Se natorial C ampaign Comm., 45 4 U .S. 27 , 3 1- 32 (1 98 1) ); se e als o 38 U.S.C. § 501(a) (" [t ]he Secreta

ry has authorit y t o presc ribe a ll rules and re g ulations which are nece ssary or
a pp ro pr ia te to c arr

y ou t th e laws a dmi nis te re d b y the De pa rtme nt a nd are c on sis te nt wi th tho se laws ,11

including - - (1) regulations with respec t to th e n at u re and extent of proof a nd evidenc e and the method of taking and fur nishing them in orde r to establish the rig ht to benef its under such law s")

. Acc ording ly , the Court holds t h at t he Secr etar y ' s interpre tation of the " Ex cept" clause of section 5107(a ) as pr oviding the statutory authority for the VB A L etter Immediate De velopment pr ov isi on s is " no t in c on sis te nt" wi th s e c tio n 5 10 7( a ), and that th e du tie s c on str

uc te d b y tho se provisions do not frustrate the policy -- i.e., the well-g rounded- claim re quirement -- set forth by the Congr ess in section 5107(a ). Hermoge nes , supra. There fore , we will ac cord his interpr etation due defe renc e. Se e Tril le

s and Hermoge nes , both su pra . We a lso note that any interpre tative doubt as to w he the r t

he " Exc e pt" c la

us e of se c tio n 5 10 7( a ) p e rm its the Se c re tary to u nd e rt a ke su c h a

re qu e st

"' is to be resolved in the ve tera n' s favor ' ". Di

pp e l v . W est , 1 2 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 6 6 (1 9 9 9 ) ( qu o t i n g Br own v. Gardne r , 513 U. S. 115 , 1 18 (1 99 4) ); Al le n v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 439, ( 1995) (e n banc) (applying Gardner in choosing betwee n plausible statutory constructions of 38 U.S.C. § 1110). Th e na rr ow e xc e p t i o n t o s e c t i o n 5 1 0 7 ( a ) p r o v i d e d f o r i n t h e VB A L e tte r I mme dia te Deve lopment provisions meets the criter ia s et forth and applied by this Court in Fu ge re , supra. The VB A L etter' s require ment that the RO " reque st" both SMRs and VA medica l rec ords (but no other govern men t o r pr iv ate -m edi cal reco rds ) "pri or t o a d ete rm in ati on th at [ a] cla im is wel l[ ] groun ded ", VB A L etter at 1, is obviously intended to do more than "me rely clar ify or explain", Fu ge re , su pr a , se c t i o n 5 1 0 7 ( a ) ; i n f

a c t , i t r e p r e s e n t s an i mp l e m e n t a t i o n o f t h e S e c r e t ar y ' s s p e c i f i c a u t ho ri ty to provide e xc e ptions to that sta tut e e xce pt wh e re statut or ily c on tr a ind ic a te d. Mo re ov e r, the " du ty to
re qu e st" se t f

or th i n th e VB A L e tte r Imme diate De ve lop me nt pr ov isi on s is a na rr ow du ty , and

tho se pro vi si on s cl earl y

"pres cri be[ ] wha t ac ti on mu st be t aken in th e in it ial lev els of ad ju di cat io n". Fu ge re , supra. Finally , we note that the VB A L etter Immediate De velopment provisi ons do more than mere ly

interpre t or ref

lect the require ments of section 5107(a) ; they establish a new and distinct du ty , a uth or ize d b y the " Exc e pt" c la us e in se c tio n 510 7( a ), to as so c ia te wi th a ve te ra n' s c la ims fi le

re c or ds that " are
. . . con si dere d to be in VAc us tod

y " . V B A L e tte r at 1; se e Fu ge re , su pr a (s ub sta nti ve ru le is o ne tha

t do e s " no t me re ly c lari fy or e xpla in an e xistin g ru le or statut e " ); se e als o Paralyzed Veterans of America , su pra ; cf. Animal Legal Defense F und v. Quigg , 932 F.2d 920, 927- 28 (F ed. C ir. 1991) (apply ing principle t hat "rule which mere ly clar ifies or explains exis ting law or12

re g ulatio ns is i nte rp re ta tiv e " to s itu a tio n w he re ru le a t is su e c lari fie d e xistin g law a s se t f or th i n opinion by

Boa rd of Patent Appe als). Our analy sis he re f

lows logic ally

from the Court' s holding in Morton , su pra ; in that r e sp e c t, the VB A L etter Immedia

te Deve lopment provisions are unlike the Ma nual M21-1 provisions at issue in Morton , su

pra . There , the Secr etar y had issued Manua l M21-1 prov i s i o n s t h at obvi ated

co mp l et el y

t h e w el l -gr o u n d ed -c l ai m re qu i r e m e n t s et fo rt h i ns ec t i o n5 1 0 7 (a ) b y re qu i ri n g fu ll fa c tua l de v e lop ment

in all case s prior to the submission of a well-g rounded cl aim. See M orton , 1 2 V e t

. A p p
. a t4 7 9 ( n o t i n g t h e a p p e l l an t ' s c o n t e n t i o n t h a t V A d i d n o ta s s i s th i m " b y fu lly developing the facts pertinent to his claim" (empha sis added) ). Be cause the Manua l M21-1 provisions at issue the re c on sti tut e d a

n e xce pti on

that sw a llo we d th e e nti re ru le that a cla ima nt m us t su bmi t a well-g rounded c laim in order to obtain the mandatory VA duty to assist, the Court was constraine d to find that those provisions did not have the forc e of law. See M orton , 12 Vet.App. at 485 (" [h] ere , th e in ter pret ati on of t he cl aim s d evel op men t p roce du res of t he .

. . Ma n ual M2 1-1 andth e C &P po lic y ur g e d u po n u s b y the a pp e lla nt s tand s in

dir e c t c on tr a ve nti on

of the c omm and of

38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7" ); see also He rmogene s , su pra . I n c o n tr a s t, th e V B A L e tt e r , b y v ir tu e o f it s li mi te d a

p p li c a ti o n to SM Rs an d

VA medica l

rec ords, both of which are "c onsidered to be in VA custody ", V BAL etter at 1, is more akin to the regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c) (1993)) that was at issue in Sa rm ie nto v . B ro wn and that required RO s to pr ov ide a

pa rt ic ula r f or m of a ssi sta

nc e -- ve ri fi c a tio n o f s e rv ic e and date s th e re of

-- pr ior to the subm i s s i o n of a w ell-g rounded c laim. Sa rm ie nto , 7 Vet.App. 80, 85 ( 1994) (e n banc) (" the

re g ulatio n d oe s n ot m a ke the Se c re tary ' s e vid e nti ary du ty c on tin g e nt up on the su bmi ssi on of a

we llg rounded c laim")

. The Court the re held that althoug h the assistance descr ibed in the regulation was

no t required

by section 5107(a ) -- beca

use no we ll-g rounded c laim had bee n s u bmitted and thus "[t]he Secre tary ' s statutory dut[ y ] to assist under [section] 5107(a) . . . [was] never trig g ere d", ibi d . -- the reg ulation never

theless established a "re g ulatory duty " that was binding on VA, id. at 85-86. The regulation at issue in Sa rm ie nto require d only a nar row, minimal duty : That VA " seek e videntiary verific ation" f

rom the vete ran' s service depar tment in sit uations wher e evidenc e of se rvice was not submitt ed by

the veter an hims elf. Similarly , the VB A L etter Immediate De velopment provisions require only

that VA request copies of records that are alre ady considere d to be in VA' s possession13

and apply , expli citly , prior to the submission of a well-g rounded c laim. Cf. Bell v. Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 611, 613 ( 1992) (pe r cur iam order ) (noting that some documents " are , in contemplation of law, be fore the Secr etar y and the B oard a

nd should be included in the re cord" ). Henc e, the C o u rt holds that the VBAL etter I mmediate De velopment provisions are substantive in nature a

nd have the forc e of law so as to r equire that VA reque st copies of SMRs and VA medica l rec ords prior to making a determination as t o whether a claim is well grounde d. The

a pp e lla nt is en tit le d, the n, to h a ve his c la im a dju dic a te d in a c c or da nc e wi th t he VB A L e tte r d

uty to reque st SMR s and VA me dical re cords, notwithstanding that that L etter w as dated in Aug ust 1999, subsequent to the Dec ember 1997 BV A dec ision on appeal. See Karnas v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 308, 313 (1991) ( "w here the law or regulation chang es af

ter a claim has be en filed or reope ned but be fo re the a dmi nis tr a tiv e or jud ic ia l app e a l pro c e ss ha s bee n co nc lud e d, the ve rs ion mos t f a vo ra ble to the appellant should apply unless Congr ess provided otherwise or permitted the [Secre tary ] t o do oth e rw ise and the Se c re tar y di d s o" ); see also Dippel , 12 Vet.App. at 473 (" the Court has applied Karnas t o p ro ce s s -o ri en t ed ad m i n i s t ra t i v e i s s u an ce s t h at ar e b i n d i n g o nt h e B o ar d " ( ci t i n g Be rn ar d

v . B ro wn , 4 Vet.App. 384, 393- 94 (1993) (holding that re mand re quired for application of V A Gen. Coun. Pr e c . O pin ion

16 -9 2 ( re g ard ingB VApr oc e dure s) , w hic h w a s is su e d b e fo re a pp e a l pro c e ss
wa s completed) ). " [T] he Court has re peate dly applied Kar

na s to c h an g e s in

th e r e g u la tion-like provisions in [ the Manua l M21-1] relating to evidentiary rules and c ase- proce ssing r equire ments for claims of ser

vice c onnection for

post -t raumatic stress disorder ". Dippel , su pra (citing , inter alia, Mo re au v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 389, 395 ( 1996)), a nd Do ra n v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 283, 289 ( 1994) (applying, pur suant to Karnas , a Manua l M21-1 provision that "be came eff ective a fter the date of appellant' s appea l to this Court") ). I n this case, ther e is n o ev i d en ce to sug g est that VA c omplied with the VBAL etter Im m e d i a t e D e v e l o p m e n td u t y as to t he inst ant c lai m -- a nd the Secre tary ' s repr esentative conce ded

as m uch at o ral argum ent . Al th ou gh th e S ecret ary argues th at hi s effo rt in Apr il 19 78 met th at V BA L e tte r d uty in t his c a se , th a t Apr il 1 97 8 le tte r t o th e NPRC w a s se nt i n th e c on te xt of a wh oll y dif fe re nt c la im a

nd thu s c ann ot m e e t th e du ty to r e qu e st SM Rs in this c as e
. R. at 19. Moreove r, the Se c re tary ' s r e pr e se ntativ e a lso c on c e de d at or a l argume nt t hat th e Ma

nu a l M2 1- 1 f

ir e -r e la te d- c a se provisions refle ct an incr easing ability at the NPRC to rec onstruct information that was c ontained14

in r e c or ds tha

t we re de str oy e d in the 19 73 fi re
. Th e re fo re , a re qu e st ma de tod ay c ou ld v e ry po ssi bly y ield a re sult differe nt from that which the inquiry made in A

pril 1978 produce d. Henc e, the Court wi ll r e mand

thi s matte r f

or c omp lia nc e wi th t he VB A L e tte r 2 0- 99 -6 0 I mme diate De ve lop me nt d uty to r e qu e st SM Rs a

nd VAme dic a l re c or ds and fo r fu rt he r a dju dic a tio n, if

ne c e ssa ry , c on sis te nt w ith this opini on. See D oran and Karnas , both supra. C . Miscellaneous M

atter F ina lly , th e Court

no te s th a t th e B oa

rd , in its a dju dic a tio n o f t

he ins tant cla im , erred in i ts continuit y -of- sy

mptomatology

analy sis. I n order

to avoid repe tition of that error on r emand, the C o u rt n o t es t h e f

o l l o wi n g. The sec ond and third criteria for a we ll-g rounded c laim set forth in Cal uz a , su pra , c an a lso be satisfied unde r 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b) (1999) by (a) evidenc e that a condition w as " noted" during service or duringan applica ble pre sumption period; (b) evidenc e of postser vi ce co n t inuity

of sy mptomatology ; and (c ) medica l or, in cer tain circ umstances, lay evidenc e of a nex us betwee n the prese nt disabilit y

and the postser

vice sy mptomatology

. See 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 03 (b ); Savage v . Gober , 10 Vet.App. 488, 495-97 (1997). In consideringwhether the veter an had submitted a w ell-g rounded cl ai m p u rs u an tt o § 3

. 3 0 3 (b ), t h e B o ar d s t at edt h e f

o l l o wi n g: [L ]ay e vid e nc e su

bmi tte d b y

the ve te ra

n .
. . is pro bati ve a lso to t he e xten t th a t it sug g ests a continuity

of sy mptomatology

from the ve tera

n' s m i litary

service

. 38 C.F.R. § 3.30 3(b). How ever , . . . [i ]t is not sufficient to show that the vete ran repor ted problems with his vision or even that he wore corr ective le nses. I n this case, c omp e te nt m e dic a l e vid e nc e is n eeded to iden tif y the re a so n f

or the sy mpt oms descr ibed . . . . The v e te ra n must sub mit c ompe te nt med ic al e v ide nc eas so c iat

ing his curr ent eye

sym ptom atology with inju ry or disease durin g his active service ." R. at 5 (emphasis adde d). Howe ver, Savage and § 3. 30 3( b) re qu ir e on ly that a c lai man t subm it competent e vidence of a nexus betwe en his pr esent disability and his postservice sym

ptom atology , 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); S a v a ge , su pra . To the extent that the Boa rd re quired other

wise, i.e.,

" c omp e te nt m e dic a l e vid e nc e a sso c ia tin g his c ur re nt ey e sy

mpt omatol og y

wi th i nju ry or dis e a se durin g his active s ervic e ", the Boa rd misapplied the continuity -of- sy mptomatology

criter ia from Savage , su

pra .

III. Conclusi on15

Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g ana ly sis , th e RO A, and the su bmi ssi on s of

the pa rt ie s, t h e C ourt vac ates the D ece mber 16, 1997, B VA dec ision and remands the matter for expeditious further proce eding s and issuance of a r eadjudicated decision supported by an ade quate state ment of

rea sons or base s, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107, 7104(a) , (d)( 1); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(b); VB A L etter; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 3 94 , 3 97 (1 99 1) -- a ll c on sis te nt w ith thi s o pin ion a nd in

acc ordanc e with sec tion 302 of the Vete rans' Be nefits I mprovement s Act, Pub. L . No. 103-446, § 302, 108 Stat. 4645, 4658 (1994) (found at 38 U.S.C. § 5101 note) (re quiring Secre tary to provide for " expeditious treatment" f or cla ims remanded by

BV A or the Court). Se e Allday v. Br own , 7 Vet.App. 517, 533- 34 (1995). The Secre tary ' s motion i s denied. The appellant' s Additional Brie f

and his July 5, 20 00 , r e sp on se to the Court ' s June 28 , 2 00 0, or de r w ill be ma de pa rt of his c la ims fi le

on rema nd. On remand, he will be fr ee to submit additional evidenc e and a rg ument on the re manded claim in a c c ordanc e with Kut

sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372- 73 (1999) ( per c uriam orde r). Th e Cou rt no te s th a t a

rema nd by thi s Co ur t and by the B oa rd c on fe rs on

an a pp e lla nt t he ri g ht t o VAc omp lia

nc e wi th t he te rm s of the re mand or de r an d impo se s on th e Se c re tary a c on c omi tant d

uty to ensure c ompliance with those ter ms. Se e Ste

ga ll v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). A f inal de c isi on by the B oa rd fo llo wi ngthe re mand

he re in o rd e re d w ill c on sti tu te a new decision that, i f adver se, may

be appe aled to this Court only upon the filing of a new Notice of Appe al with the Court

no t late r t ha n 1 20 da y s a ft e r the date on wh ic h n oti c e of the ne w B oa

rd fi na l de c isi on

is m a ile d to the appe llant. Se e Ma rsh v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 ( 1998). VACATED A

ND REMANDED

.