1 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 04-0555
A L B ER TO Q. P A LOR , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , 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 (De cided Ma

y 11, 2007 ) Kathy A. Lieberman, of Washington, D.C., for the appe llant

. Tim S. McClain, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Ass ist ant G e ne ra l Co un se l; Brian B. Rippel , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel, and John D. McNamee , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the brief

for the a ppellee.
Be fore KASOL D, MOORMAN, a nd DAVI S, J

ud ge s. MOORMAN, Judge , fil ed the opinion of the Court. KASOL D, Judge , filed an opinion concur ring in judgment. MOORMAN, Judge : The repre sented a ppellant, Alber

to Q. Palor, appe als a Nove mber 24, 20 03 , B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) d e c isi on th at den ied his c la im f or e nti tle me nt t o b a sic elig ibilit y for VAbenef

its. Record (R.) at 1-7. This appea l is ti mely and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U. S. C. §§ 72 52 (a) an d 7 26 6( a ). F or the re a so ns se t f

or th b e low , th e Court

wi ll aff irm the Boa

rd' s November

2003 decision.

I. F AC TS I n Marc h 2001, Mr. Palor filed a n application se ek i n g VA disability compensation for a pe pti c ulc e r, a

wo un d on the ri g ht fo ot, and a pr os ta te c on dit ion

. R. at 36

. I n sup po rt of his c la ims , Mr. Palor submitted notices and a ffidavits fr om the Republic of Philippines Department of National Def ense Military

Servi ce Bo ar d , De p ar t m en to f N at i o n al De fe n s e P h i l i p p i n e V et er ans Aff airs Of fice ,2

and fr ie nd s r e g ard inghis mil ita ry se rv ic e and

a sse rt ingthat he ha d r e c og nize d gue rr ill a se rv ice in t h e R e p u b l i c o f t h e P h i l i p p i n e s f

r o m J an u ar

y 1 9 4 2 t o N o v e mb e r

1 9 4 3

. R

. a t1 4 , 1 8 , 2 0

- 3 3 , 3 6

. In Sep te mb e r

2 0 0 1 , V A r e qu e s te d

v e r if ic a ti o no f M r
. Pa lo r ' s s e r

v ic e f r o m t h e N a ti o n a l P ersonne l Records Cente r (NPRC). I n O c tob e r 2 00 1, VA se nt M r. Pa lor a le tte r r e g ard inghis c la ims fo r s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n. R.

a t 4 8

. T h e le tt e r in f

o r me d M r
. Pa lo r o f th e e le me n ts f o r e s ta b li s h in g s e r

v ic e c o n n e c ti o n : ( 1 ) " [A ]n injury in mili tary

service or a disea se that beg an in or wa s made wor se duringmilit ary service , or an
even t i n s ervi ce cau si ng in ju ry or di seas e;" (2) " a curr ent ph y si cal or m ent al d is abi li ty ;" an d (3 ) "a relationship between y our curr ent disability and an injury , disease or event in ser vice." Under

the

se c tio n e nti tle d " What H a s B e e n D on e to H e lp Wi th your C la im?" V A info rm ed Mr . Pa lor that a

" re qu e st [w a s] se nt t o th e De pa rtme nt o f t

he Ar my fo r a ve ri fi c a tio n of y our s e rv ic e me dic a l r e c or ds

. I t usually takes six (6) months for them to reply ." R. at 50. The letter did not conta in any information re g ardingthe re quirement of e stablishing vete ran status. R. at 48-51. I n April 2002, the NPRC res ponded to VA' s reque st and repor ted that Mr. Palor " has no

se rv ic e a s a me mbe r of

the Phi lip pin e Com monwe a lthAr my , in c lud ingthe re c og nize d gue ri lla s, in the servic e of the United States Armed F orce s." R. at 75. I n May 2002, the Manila, Republic of the Phi lip pin e s, VA re g ion a l of fi c e (R O) , de nie d h is c la ims on the ba sis that hi s mi lit ary se rv ic e c ou ld not be ver ified. R. at 77. Mr. Palor appe aled this dec ision. R. at 82. I n a Statement of the Case, the RO maintained its denial of his claims afte r not ing that "[t] he proof of ser vice with the Ar

med For ces of the Phi lip pin e s ( wh e the r a s a g ue ri lla or a s a [Un it ed State s A rm e d F or c e s o f t he F ar E a st] USAFF E) does not guara ntee c ertifica

tion of service with the United States Armed F orce s." R. at 101. Mr. Palor appe aled to the B oard a nd in November

2003, the dec ision on appeal he re w as iss ue d. R. at 1- 7. Th e B oa rd , a ft e r n otingtha

t " se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt c e rt if

ic a tio ns are bin din g in deter minations reg ardingbasic e ligibility require ments," de nied his claim as a matter of law . R. at 3. The a

ppellant makes one asser

tion of err or on appea l. The a ppellant ar g ues that the B oard decision should be vac ated be cause VA failed to comply with 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a). The a ppellant

a sse rt s th a t th e RO c omm itt e d p re jud ic ia l e rr or

by no t in fo rm inghim ho w he c ou ld s ub sta nti a te his claim, spec ifically , what information or evi d en ce wa s nece ssary to establish vetera

n status. The3

Secre tary asser ts that the Board de cision should be aff irmed bec ause V A did attempt to verify Mr. Palor' s service throug h NPRC and be cause VA is bound by the servic e depa

rtment' s response, w hich indicated that the a

ppellant did not serve in the Philippine Commonwealth Army or as a rec og nized gu er i l l a i nt h e s er v i ce o f t h e U S AF FE

. Fo r th e fo l l o wi n g re as o n s , t h e C o u rt wi l l af fi rm t h e B o ar d 's decision.

II. AN AL YSI S

A. Vete ran Status and 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) – G e ne ra lly Pur su ant t o 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a ), on c e VAre c e ives a comple te or su bs tanti a lly

c omp le te application for

benef its, the Secreta

ry is require d to inform the claimant of t h e i nformation and evidenc e not of re cord (1) t hat i s nece ssary to substantiate the claim; (2) that VA will seek to obtain, if any , and (3) that the claimant is expected to provide , if any

. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3( a ); Qu ar tuc c io v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 183, 187 (2002). The Sec reta ry is also require d to "r equest that the c laimant provide a ny evidenc e in the cla imant's posse ssion that perta ins to the claim." 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)( 1) (2 00 3) ; see Pe legrini v. Principi , 18 Vet.App. 112, 121 (2004). The purpose of t he noti ce r equire d under statutory

section 5103(a ) and r eg ulatory § 3.159(b) is to ensure that VA " provides af firmative notification to the claimant prior to the initial dec ision in the case as to the evide nce that is needed andwho sh all be res po ns ib le for pro vi di ng it ." Mayfield v . Nicholson , 444 F.3d 1328, 1333 ( Fe d. Cir. 2006); see Pe legrini , 18 Vet.App. at 120 (holding that notice must be provided " be for e an initial unfavor able [adjudicative] decision on the c laim") . Fur t h ermore, " [i ]f the claimant' s application

s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e r e i s s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n o r e v i d e n c e n e c e s s ar y t o r e s o l v e an i s s u e re la tin g to

e le me nts of

a c la im, " VAmus t ta ilo r t

he no tic e to t

he c la ima nt, thu s in fo rm ing

him of the sp e c if

ic evidenc e and inf

ormation requir ed to sub s t an t i at e t h at eleme nt of the cla im. See D ingess v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 473, 490 (2 0 0 6 ) (consolidated with Hartman v. Nicholson, No. 02-1506, aff' d in part sub nom. Hartman v. Nicholson, No. 06-7303 (F ed

. Cir. Apr. 5, 2007)) , appeal docke ted, Dingess v. Nicholson , No. 06-7247 (F ed. C ir. J une 21, 2006). This requir ement extends to the essential ele ment of the c laim at i s s u e i n this case: esta blishing vete ran status. Id. at 485 (h old ing that est a

bli sh ing ve te ra

n sta tus " is n e c e ssa

ry to s ub sta nti a te se rv ic e c on ne c tio n, and thu s, [VCA A] n oti c e mus t be pr ov ide d o n h ow[that] e le me nt [] may be e sta bli sh e d" ). F a ilure to c omp ly4

with any of these r equire ments may constitute remanda

ble er ror whe n such er

ror is pre judicial to the appellant. Pelegrini , 1 8 V e t.A pp . at 12 1- 22 ; Quartuccio, 16 Vet.App. at 188. I n the eve nt the Court fi nd s e rr or , it

mus t " take du e a c c ount o f t he ru le of pr e jud ic ia l e rr or ." 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1; see Conway v. Principi , 35 3 F .3 d. 13 69 , 13 73 (F e d. Ci r. 2 00 4) ; Ove rton v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 427, 435 (2006). B . Pr oo f o f P hil ipp ine Ve te ra n St a tus P u r s u an t t o 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 1 ( 2 ) , a " v e t e r a n " i s a " p e r s o n w h o s e r

v e d i n t h e a c t i v e m i l i t a r

y, naval, or air s ervic e, and w ho is discharg ed ther efr om under c onditions ot her tha n dishonorable." See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(d)( 2006). In cer tain circ umstances, this " ser vice" may include ser

vice in the Com monwe a lthAr

my of the Phi lip pin e s, inc lud ing that se rv ic e c la ime d b y the a pp e lla nt, se rv ic e in the orga nized g uerilla force s that wer e ca lled into service of the U.S. Armed F orce s. See 38 U. S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.40. To e stablish this s er v i ce, the Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs has pr omu lg a te d

t w o r e g u l a t i o n s c o n c e r

n i n g t h e t y

p e o f e v i d e n c e t h a tm ay

b e r e l i e d u p o n : 3 8 C

. F

. R. § 3.203, addre ssing g ener a lly "se rvice rec ords as e vidence of ser vice a nd char acte r of discha

rg e," and 38 C.F.R. § 3.41, specific ally addre ssing e stablishin g v et er an st atus for Philippine service

. Re g ard ingse rv ic e re c or ds , 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .2 03 pr ov ide s: (A) Evidenc e submit ted by a c laimant

. For the purpose of establishing e ntitlement to pension, compensation, [DI C] or burial be nefits [VA] m ay acc ept evidenc e of service sub m i t t ed by

a cla imant (or sent dire ctly to the Depa

rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs by the servic e depa

rtment), such a s a DD Form 214, C ertificate of Relea se or Discharg e fr om Active Duty , or o ri gi n al C er t i fi ca t e o f D i s ch ar ge, wi t h o u tv er i fi ca t i on from t h e ap p ropriate service depar tment if the evidenc e mee ts the following c on dit ion s: (1) The evidenc e is a document issued by the s ervic e depa rtment. A copy

of an orig inal document is ac cepta ble if the c opy

was issued by

the servic e depa

rtment or if the copy

was issued by

a public custodian of

rec ords who ce rtifies that it is a true and exact copy

of the doc ument in the custodian' s custod y o r, i f t he copy was submitte d b y an ac cre dited ag ent, attorne y or ser vice or g anization repre sentative who has succ essfully

completed VA -pre scribed tr aining on milit ary rec ords, and who cer t i fi es t hat it is a true and e x act c opy of either an orig inal document or of a copy issued by the servic e depa

rtment or a public c ustodian of re cords; and (2) The document conta ins neede d information as to l eng th, time and char acte r of se rvice ; and5 (3) In the opinion of [VA] the document is g enuine a nd the information contained in it is acc urate

.

. . . . (c) Ver ification fr o m the servic e depa rtment: When the claimant does not su bmi t e vid e nc e of se rv ic e or the e vid e nc e su bmi tte d do e s no t me e t the re qu ir e me nts of par ag raph (a) of this sec tion (and par ag raph ( b) of this section in pension cla ims), [VA] shall reque st verification of service from the se rvice depar tment. . . .

As to P hil ipp ine c la ima

nts , § 3. 41 pr ov ide s: (a) For a Regular Philippine Scout or a member of one of

the re g u lar components of the Philippine Commonwealth Army while s ervingwith Armed For c e s o f U n it e d St a te s , th e p e r io d

o f a c ti v e s e r

v ic e w il l b e f

r o m t h e d a te c e rtified b y t h e A r m e d F o r c e s a s t h e d a t e o f

e n l i s t m e n to r

d a t e o f r e p o rt f o r a c t i v e d u t y, wh ic he ve r i s late r t o d a te of re le a se fr om ac tiv e du ty , disc ha rg e , d e a th, or

in t he c a se of a me mber for the Phili ppine Commonwealth Army J une 30, 1946, whiche ver w as ear lier. . . . (b) Ac tive service of a Regular Philippine Scout or a m em b er of the Phili ppine Commonwealth Army servingwith the Armed Forc es of the United States will include a prisoner-of-war s t a tu s i m m e d i a t e l y f o l l o w i n g a

p e r i o d o f a c t i v e d u t y, or a pe riod of rec og nized guerilla ser vice or unrec og nized service unde r a r ecog nized commissioned office r. I n those ca ses wher e following rele ase f rom ac tive duty

as set forth in par ag raph ( a) of this section, t he veteran is fa ctually found by [VA] to have been injure d or killed by

the J apane se bec ause of

anti-Japanese a ctivities or his or her former service in the Armed For ces of the United States, suc h injury or death may

be he ld t o h a ve be e n in c ur

re d in a c tiv e se rv ic e fo r [VA ] p ur po se s. De te rm inatio n s ha ll be base d on all available evidenc e, including service depar tment reports and consideration shall be g iven to the charac ter and leng th of the ve tera n' s former active se rv ic e in t

he Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. (c ) Apr iso ne r- of

-w ar s ta tus ba se d u

po n a rr e st d ur ingg e n e r a l z o n i f

i c a t i o n w ill not be suffic ient of itself to bring a ca se within the definition of re turn to mili tary control. (d ) T he a c tiv e se rv ic e of me mbe rs of the ir re g ula r f or c e s gu e ril la will be the pe ri od c e rt if ie d b y the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt. Withre g ard

to P hil ipp ine c la ima

nts c l a i min g se rv ic e in t

he Phi lip pin e Com monwe a lthAr my and attempting to establish vetera n status, the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit) ana ly

zed the relationship between § 3.203 and § 3.41 and held that "the se regulations require that an applica

nt prove his servi ce in the Phil ippine Commonwealth Army with e ith e r officia l6

documentation is sued by a United States service depar tment, or verific ation of the c laimed servic e by su ch a d ep a rt men t. " So ria v . B ro wn , 118 F.3d 747, 748 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997) (citing § 3.9 (r e de sig na

te d a s § 3. 41 (2 00 1) ) f

or the pr op os iti on

that ve te ra

n s ta tus fo r P hil ipp ine ve te ra ns is

au t h o ri z ed "f

ro m the date c ertified by

the Arme d For ces [of the United States], § 3.203(a) for the pro po si ti on th at "s ervi ce dep art men t d ocu men tat io n o f se rvi ce" is r e quir e d wher e av ail abl e , and § 3.203(c) for t h e p ro p o s ition that service de partment ve rification of service is required w here doc um e nt at ion is no t a va ila ble ). Thus , in a c c or da nc e wi th t he F e de ra l Cir c uit ' s d e te rm inatio n in So ria , Phili ppi ne cla imants are not limited solely to NPRC ' s verific ation as a me ans of pr oving veter an status. They may also submit officia l evidenc e from the U.S . service depar tment that verifies the ir se rv ic e . 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a ), (c ); c f. S or ia , 118 F .3 d. a t 749. Th e F e de ra l Circ uit ult imate ly conclude d: Phili ppine veter ans ar e not elig ible for ve tera ns' benef its un l es s a United States service depar

tment documents or ce rtifies their se rvice

. Where ser

vice de partment c ertification is required, the V A has long treated the servic e depa

rtment' s decision on such matter s as conc lusive and binding on the VA

. T h u s , i f t h e U n i t edS t at es s er v i ce d ep ar t m en tre fu s es t o v er i fy t h e ap p l i ca n t 's claimed se rvice , the applica nt's only rec ourse lies withi n the re levant ser vice de pa rtme nt, no t th e VA . T his c ourt se e s n o e rr or

in t hat tr e a tme nt. So ria , 118 F.3d at 749 (citations omitted) (holding no e rror in Boa rd dec ision where B oard r efuse d to consider claim for vetera n' s benef its beca use t he United States Depa rtment of t he Ar

my ref used to cer tify his service in the Phili ppine Commonwealth Army ). Thus, it a

ppear s that pursuant to the Fe dera l Circuit's de cision in So ria , VA may acc ept U.S. service depar tm en t documents or se ek

cer tification of ser

vice, but once cer

tification is rec eived, VAis bound by that cer tification. Id. C

. No t i ce R eq u i re m en t s Fo l l o wi n g So ria and the Ena ctment of the V CAA The Fede ral Circuit' s decision in So ria pr e date s th e VC AA , a nd thu s, the F e de ra l Cir c uit

did not addre ss VA' s notice oblig ations conce rning proof of veter an status when it considere d the interplay betwee n § 3.203 and § 3.41. I n light of the C ourt' s holding in Dingess, we c onclude that VA was obligated to inf

orm the appellant of the information or evidenc e nece ssary to pr ove the element of

veter an s t at us, what information the vetera n was re sponsible for providing , and what information VA would se ek to obtain conc erningthat element. S e e D i ng e ss , 19 Vet.App. at 485;

see also Lock

lear v. Nicholson , 20 Vet.App. 410, 416 (2006) (noting that sec tion 5103(a) doe s notThe Court notes that in re g ard to a separ ate a

pplication for be nefits, and pr ior to the 1 enac tment of the VCAA, VAdid in fac t inform t he appellant that establishing vetera n status was at issue in his attempt to establish entitlement to VA benef its. That notice, dated June 2000, informed the appe llant that he nee ded to s ubmit "a milit ary discharg e ce rtificate or other a cce ptable evide nce of military

service on which y our cla im is based. You may reque st proof of se rvice from the Phili ppine Vete rans Af

fairs O ffice or at the N oncurr ent Recor ds Br anch, O ff i ce of the Adjutant Gene ral, GH Q, in Camp Ag uinaldo, Quezon City ." R. at 17. 7 require a "pr e-de cisional decision" on the evidenc e, but it does requir e that " some cog nitive review of the c laim must be made prior to providingthe notice a nd that a g ener alized or boilerplate notice le tte r mig ht no t su ff

ic e in so me c a se s" ). Sin c e ve te ra n status is fr e qu e ntl y a dis po si ti ve i ss ue in claims filed by

Phili ppine claimants, some tailoringof VCA A n o t i ce c oncer ning pr oof of ve tera

n sta t u s i s n ec es s ary

in most, i f not all, ca ses. Given that the issue of whether VCAA-c ompliant 1 notice wa s provided is a " substantially fac tual deter

mination . . . that should .

. . [be] made by [VA] in the first instance," the Court will now addre ss whether the B oard' s decision in this reg ard w as clea rly err oneous. Se e Ma

y fie ld , 444 F.3d at 1333-34. D. Compliance with 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) I n this case, the B oard a ddresse d both § 3.41 and § 3.203(c ) and de termined, b as ed on the appellant' s service in the g uerilla for ces, that "VAmay acc ept evidenc e of se rvice . . without

ve ri fi c a tio n f

ro m th e a pp ro pr ia te se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt i f t he e vid e nc e me e ts the fo llo wi ngc on dit ion s: (1 ) [T ]he e vid e nc e is a doc ume nt iss ue d by the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt and , (2) the doc ument contains neede d inform at i o n as to leng th, time, and char acte r of se rvice , and (3) in the opinion of VA , the document is g enui n e an d t h e i n formation contained in it is accurate." R. at 4. The B oard the n de te rm ine d tha t the do c ume nts and a ff ida vit s su bmi tte d b y

the a pp e lla nt i n s up po rt

of his c la im d id not meet the re quirements of 38 C.F .R. §3.203, "a s none [were ] i ssued by the servic e depa

rtment." R. at 6. The B oard note d t h at i t h ad relied on the same re asoning provided by the RO in the Statement of the Case , that beca use " [NP RC] had ce rtified that [the appellant] had no re cog nized mil ita ry se rv ic e and

tha t th is d e te rm inatio n [is ] bin ding on VA . . . thi s c la im i s b e ingde nie d a s a mat ter of l aw. " Id. Th e qu e sti on rema ins , h ow e ve r, wh e the r t he no tic e pr ov ide d to the a pp e lla nt p ur su a nt t o 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3( a ) w a s p ro pe rl y ta ilo re d, a de quate ly

inf or min g the a

pp e lla nt o f h is o pp or

tun ity8

to submit evidenc e pursua nt to § 3.203 to e stablish ve tera n status, a nd if not, w hether

such er ror wa s prejudicia l. Although the B oard r ecog nized the exi stence of the require ments of both § 3.203 and § 3 .4 1, it d id n ot s pe c if

ic a lly dis c us s wh e the r t

he RO pr ov ide d th e a

pp e lla nt n oti c e of

the op po rt

un ity t o s u b m i t o f f i c i a l U

. S

. d o c u m e n t a t i o n o f s e r v i c e a s e v i d e n c e , p e r

m i t t e d b y So ria , to establish vetera n status . Rathe r, the B oa

rd , in a dd re ssi ng VA ' s c omp lia

nc e wi th 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a ) a nd 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 59 (b ), de te rm ine d th a t "the a pp e lla nt w a s n oti fi e d o f t

he e vid e nc e ne c e ssa

ry to s ub sta nti a te his

c la im b y c or re sp on de nc e date d in

Oc tob e r 2001 (pr io r to ad jud ic a tio n) ." R. at 3. Th is f ind ingis clea rly err oneous. Se e Ma

y fie ld , 444 F.3d at 1333-34. The Oc tober 2001 letter did not provide the appellant notice of the information and evidenc e nece ssary to substantiate his c laim, nor did it inform him of any inf or ma tio n o r e vid e nc e c on c e rn ingve te ra n s ta tus that V A w ou ld s e e k to ob ta in o n h is b eh al f, n o r of any

evidenc e and inf

ormation that he wa s expected to provide. The October 2001 le tte r i nf or me d th e a

pp e llan t on ly

tha t V A h a d r e qu e ste d v e ri fi c a tio n o f h is " servic e m edical

r e c or ds " f

rom the De partment of the Army

. The letter did not inform him of the re quirements of 38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a )( c ), or § 3 .4 1, that is , th a t he c ou ld have su bmi tte d e vid e nc e , in

the fo rm of U. S. service documentation, supporting h i s v et er an st atus, nor did it inform him that the U.S. service depar tment cer tifications that Phili ppine service either qualifies or does not qua lify him for veter an status may

be binding on his claim

. Al though V A had r ece ived the appe llant's le tters from the Republic of the Philippines Depar tment of National De fense Milit ary S er v i ce Bo ard, D epar

tment of National Defe nse Philippi ne Vetera ns Affa irs Offic e, and aff idavits from his friends de scribing their military

experience s toge ther, a

nd thus clear ly

was a war e that vete ran status would be an issue in h is c la im, the Oc tob e r 200 1 lette r did no t pro vid e him wi th inf or ma tio n as to what do c ume nts , if any , he could submit that would constitute acc eptable evidence of qualify ing military service . As

a re su lt, the no tic e pr ov ide d to the a pp e lla nt f a ile d to satis fy

a ll o f t he re qu ir eme nts se t f

or th i n 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) . Havingfound er ror with the B oard' s determination, the Court mus t " take du e accou nt of the ru le of

pr e jud ic ia l e rr or ." 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( b) (2 ); see Conway v. Principi , 3 53 F .3 d 1 36 9, 13 74 -7 5 ( F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) ; Ove rton , 20 Vet.App. at 435. E. Prejudicial Err or The Fe dera l Circ uit's de cision in So ria rec og nizes that service de partment c ertifications that Phili ppine servic e either

qualifies or doe s not qualify the claimant f

or vete ran status a

re c onclusiveThis provision allows for the assig nment of an eff ective date on the date V A re ceive d the 2 previously

decide d claim in case s in which VA re considers that claim beca u s e i t "rec eive[d] or associate [d] with the claims file relevant official service department records that exis ted and ha d not 9 and binding on VA. The ref ore, in a ssessing w hether

the appe llant was prejudice d by VA' s failure to notify him of the various methods ava ilable for pr oving Philippine veter an status, the Court ca n
conc l u d e o n l y

that beca use the a ppellant is curr ently

ineligible f

or VA be nefits as a

matter of la

w based on the NPRC's ref

usal to cer

tify the appellant' s service , he was not pr ejudiced by the sec tion 5103(a) notice er

ror. See V

aliao v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 229, 232 (2003) (determining that VCAA

no tic e e rr or

wa s n on pr e jud ic ia l w he re a

pp e lla nt w a s no t e nti tle d to be ne fi t a s a ma tte r o f l aw) . T his is s o b e c a

u s e b a s e d o n th e U

. S. s e r v ic e d e p artm e n t' s r e f

u s a l to c e rti f

y , th e r e ar e p r e s u ma

bly no do c ume nts iss ue d by the U. S. se rv ic e de pa rtme nt t hat th e a pp e lla nt c ou ld s ub mit

to V A that w ou ld show qualifying service under §3.203. F urthermor e, the a ppellant has not asse rted that he has any

e vid e nc e that w ou ld m e e t th e re qu ir e me nts of 38 C.F .R. § 3.2 03 , doc ume ntatio n of se rv ic e fr om a U. S. s e rv ic e de pa

rtme nt; rathe r, he a lle g e s o nly that a dd iti on a l evi de nc e " c ou ld e xist" that w ou ld

war rant a further reque st to the service depar tment. See Appellant' s Br ief at 13-14 (re cog nizi ng that differ ent identification data could prompt VA to seek recer tification, but failing to assert, with any deg ree of specificity , that the i nformation submitted for the c ertification request wa s err oneous, and also failing to a ssert with any specific ity

that he has e vidence in his possession t hat would meet the

re qu ir e me nts of

§ 3 .2 03 ); se e als o S

ar mi e nto v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 80, 86 ( 1994)(r emandingwher e veter an asse rted that VAsoug ht cer tification of his servic e with er roneous spe lling of his first name),

ov e rru le d o n o the r g

ro un ds by D'A mi c o v . W

est , 209 F.3d 1322, 1327 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000). Thus, g iven the binding nature of the U.S. service depar tment's c ertification in thi s instance, a rema nd for f urther development could not possibly chang e the outcome of the decision. See V aliao , 17 Vet.App. at 232. The appellant' s only rema ining rec ourse, as noted by the Fe dera l Circuit in So ria , su pr a , is to submit any

documentation of qua lify ing U .S. service he may possess to the appropr iate ser vice depar tment for certification of hi s service . 118 F.3d at 749. I f his service eventua lly is certifie d, the appellant may

seek to reope n his claim for service connec tion based on his submission of new and materia l e vidence – the service depar tment's cer

tification. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 8; 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .1 56 (c ) ( 20 06 ) . T hu s, a lth ou g h V A s ho uld have inf or me d the a pp e lla nt t hat ve te ra n s ta tus c ou ld 2been a ssociated with the c laims file when VAfirst dec ided the cla im." 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c ).

I n s up po rt

of his a sse rt ion, M r. Pa lor su bmi tte d w ithhis a

pp lic a tio n f

or VAbe ne fi ts 3 aff idavits from the R epublic of Phili ppines Depa rtment of National Defe nse Military Service Boa

rd, De pa rtme nt of Natio na l De fe ns e Phi lip pin e Ve te ra ns Af fa ir s Of fi c e , and fr ie nd s re g ard ing his milit ary service and asse rting that he had r ecog nized gue rrilla ser vice in t h e R epubli c of the Phili ppines. 10 be substantiated in either of the two wa

y s specifie d in VA re gu l at ions, beca use the ser

vice depar tment has ref

used ce rtification, s u ch er ror does not warr ant a r emand in this case wher e the appellant ha s not shown that a re mand would alter the re sult. See V

aliao , 17 Vet.App. at 232.

III . C ON CL USI ON Ba sed on t h e fo regoinganaly sis, the appellant' s and the Sec reta ry ' s briefs, a

nd a re view of the re cord on a

ppeal, the B oard' s November 24, 2003, decision is AFF I RMED.

KASOL D, Judge , concur

ring in judgment: Although I ag ree with the dispositi on in this case, Irespe ctfully

dissent fro m t h at p art of the majority opinion that finds that the Secre tary violated 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a). Pursuant to regulation, the "a ctive ser vice of members of

the irre g ular for ce gu e ril la will be the per iod certified by the service depar tment." 38 C.F .R. § 3.41(d) (2006) (latter e mphasis added)

. Thus, when Mr. Palor

submitt ed his application for VA benef its a nd asser ted that he ha d rec og nized g uerr illa service in the Republic of the Philippines from J anuar y 1942 to November 1943 and provided doc umentation supporting his a ssertion, the Secr etar y had suff icient information to see k 3

certif ic a ti o n o f th e r e p o rte d s e r v ic e f r o m th e N PR C. I n r e s p o n s e th e r e to , th e N PR C r e p o rte d that Mr. Palor " has no ser

vice a s a m em b er of the Philippi ne Commonwealth Army , including the

rec og nized gue rillas, in the service of the United States Ar med For ces." R. at 75. There afte r, the Secre tary proper ly denied Mr. Palor ' s claim. See So ria , 118 F.3d at 749 (" Where ser vice de partment

cer tification is require d, . . . the VA ha s long tre ated the se rvice depar t ment' s decision on such matters as c onclusive and binding on the VA. . . . This cour t sees no er

ror in that tre atment." ).11

Although section 5103(a) require s the S ecr etar y to notify a cla imant of the information and

e vid e nc e ne c e ssa

ry to s ub sta nti a te a c la im, it s ho uld no t be re a d to re qu ir e futil e e ff or ts a s is the c a se he re , w he re the inf

or ma tio n ne c e ssa

ry to s e e k c e rt if

ic a tio n o f s e rv ic e fr om N PRC is pr ov ide d w ith the application for VA be nefits and the la w is disposit ive and manda tes denial of the claim when that service is not so certified. See Ala. Po we r Co . v . Co stl e , 636 F.2d 323, 360 ( D.C. Cir. 1980) (stating the ob vio us pr op os iti on

that c ou rt s sh ou ld b e re luc tant t o int e rp re t the te rm s of a statut e " to m a nd a te po int le ss expe nd iture s o f e ff or t" ); Mason v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 129, 132 ( 2002) (" [B]ecause the law as m an d at ed by

statute, and not the e vidence , is disposi tive of this claim, the VCAA is not

a pp lic a ble ." ); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 V e t

. A p p
. 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( w h e r e l aw , an d n o te vid e nc e , is dispositi ve, cla im should be denied or a ppeal ter minated bec ause of

lack of leg al merit).