This matter wa s orig inally assig ned to J udg e Steinberg . Upon his retire ment, the matter 1 was re assig ned on August 31, 2005. This panel was c onvened on D ece mber 7, 2005.

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 03-2099
D ONAL D R. D EN N I S , 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 January

31, 2007 )

Glenn R. Be rgmann , o f B e rr ie n Sp ri ng s, Mic hig an , f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Al ic e M. Sz

y nk le wsk i , all of Washington, D.C., for the appe llee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and MOORMAN and L ANCE , Judges

. L ANCE, Judge : The appe llant , Do n ald R . Dennis, throug h counsel, see ks review of an 1 October 24, 2003 , decision of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) that de nied entitlement to VA benef its on the basis of his discha rg e status. Record (R.) at 1-9. Both parties filed initial brie fs and the appe llant filed a reply brief. I n addition, the parties pr ovided supplemental memora nda of la w purs ua nt t o th e Court ' s o rder. Th is a pp e a l is tim e ly , a

nd the Court

ha s ju ri sd ic tio n p ur su ant t o 3 8 U. S

. C

. § § 7 2 5 2 (a ) a n d

7 2 6 6 (a ). Fo r t h e re as o n s s et fo rt hb el o w, t h e C o u rt wi l l v ac at e t h e B o ar d 's October 2003 decision and rema

nd the matter for further proce eding s consistent with this opi nion.

I. F AC TS Mr. Dennis ser

ved on ac tive duty

in the U.S . Marine Corps f rom J une 1968 to Octobe r 1969. R. at 10. At the t ime of hi s discharg e, he had been accused of being absent fr om an appointed plac e2

of duty on post as a sentry

in a combat a

rea , s l ee p i n g o n post as a sentry in a combat a

rea , and possession of mar i

j u an a. R. at 19, 52. After being advised of his rig hts, he reque sted an "unde sirable discha

rg e for the g ood of the ser

vice to esc ape tr ial b y general cour t-martial," which the Ma ri ne Cor ps g ra nte d. R. at 16 -2 0, 42 , 5 2. Mr . D e nn is' s D D F or m 21 4 c ha

ra c te ri zed his discharg e as " under c onditions ot her tha n honorable ." R. at 38. I n Se pte mbe r 19 77 , the De pa rtme nt of De fe ns e Spe c ia l D isc ha rg e Re vie w Pr og ra

m ( SDRP) up g r a d e d h is d is c h ar g e an d is s u e d h im a r e v is e d D D F o r m 2 1 4 th a t c h ar a c te r iz e d h is upg rade d discharg e as "unde r honorable conditi ons." R. at 39, 42. I n J une 1978, the Depar tment of the Navy
re vie we d M r. De nn is' s d isc ha rg e and no tif ie d h im: An o t h e r r e v i ew o f y o u r d i s ch ar ge h as b ee nco mp l et edb y t h e N av al Di s ch ar ge Re v ie w B o ar d a s r e qu ir e d b y Pu b li c L aw 9 5

- 1 2 6

. A s a r e s u lt o f th is r eview, the Boa rd has made a pre li mi n a

r y deter mination that y ou would not qualify for upg rading under the new, uniform standards for discha rg e re view. The char acte r of discha rg e, Ge ne ra l or

Ho no ra ble , th a t y ou re c e ive d fr om the pr e vio us re vie w und e r the [SDRP ] has not bee n chang ed.
R

. at 4 6

. I nJ u l y 1 9 7 9 , M r. De n n i s re qu es t ed t h at t h e De p ar t m en t o f th e Na v y u p gra d e h i s d i s ch ar ge to honorable , but, upon review , the Navy found that his "disc harg e should not be cha ng ed." R. at 54. I n addition, the rec ord contains an undated VA For m 3230 "Re fer

ral Slip" from the Dire ctor of the Com pe ns a tio n a

nd Pe ns ion Se rv ic e , w hic h p ro vid e s: This is a specia l upgr aded disc harg e ca se re viewed unde r [Publ ic L aw] 95-126. The up g ra de wa s D ENI ED up on se c on d r e vie w a

nd e nti tle me nt t o V A b e ne fi ts i s de pe nd e nt o n th e or ig ina l disc ha rg e . T he lang

ua g e of the a tta c he d s e c on d r e vie w i s ambig uous theref

ore this flash should re main with this docume nt in the claims folder.
R. at 126. I n Dec ember

1980, Mr. Dennis a

pplied for e ducational be nefits. R. at 73-74. In Marc h 1981, VA denie d his claim beca use the lawstates that " an honora ble or g ener al dischar g e aw arde d under the De pa rtme nt o f D e fe ns e ' s [SD RP] . . . d oe s n ot r e move a ny ba r t o b e ne fi ts. " R. at 74 ; se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(h)( 2) (2006) . VA thus conc luded that the natur e of Mr . Dennis's dischar g e or rele ase f rom servic e pre cluded him from r ece iving be nefits. R. at 74. I n Marc h 2002, Mr. Dennis filed a n income and ne t worth statement, which VA construe d

a s a c la im f or pe ns ion be ne fi ts. R. at 86 -9 0, 92 . AVAre g ion a l of fi c e (R O) i ss ued a dec isi on in3

which it denied his cla im pur suant to Public L aw 95- 126 and " on a pre vious administrative decision dated March 6, 1981[,] which denied [him ] benefits due to an unde sirable c hara cter of dischar g e." R. at 92. Mr. Dennis filed a timely Notice of Disag ree ment asser ting that he was e ntitled to rece ive benef its because his discharg e status had be en chang ed by the SDRP in 1977, and he attached a copy of his revised D D For

m 214. R. at 95. I n October

2003, the B oard issued the decision her e on appe al in whi ch i t fo und that the char acte r of Mr. D ennis' s discharg e fr om service was a bar to e ligibility

to VA benefits. R. at 1-7. Fur ther, the B oard f

ound that, althoug h the Secr etar y failed to c omply

with his noti ce obligations purs ua nt t o th e Ve te ra

ns Cla ims As sis tanc e Ac t of 20 00 (V CA A) , Pub . L . N o. 10 6- 47 5, 11 4 St a t. 2096, such er

ror wa s not prejudicial bec ause Mr . Dennis wa s not entitled to VA benef its as a matter of law. R. at 6. I n s o d oin g , th e B oa rd a lso de te rm ine d th a t th e a pp e lla nt w a s n ot i ns ane a t th e tim e of the c ommissi on of the off enses that led to the a

ppellant' s discharg e. On appe al, the appe llant argues that the S ecr etar y failed to comply with the VC AA and that such er ror wa s not harmless. Appellant' s Br ief (A pp. Br .) at 7-14. Mr. Dennis thus re quests that the Court remand his cla im for re adjudication. App. B r. at 14.

II. AN AL YSI S Pursuant to the VCAA, upon rec eipt of a complete or substantially complete a

pplication for benef its a nd prior to a

n initial unfa

vorable decision on a claim by an ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction, the Secr etar

y is require d to inform the claimant of the information and e vidence not of rec ord that (1) is nec essar

y to substantiate the claim , (2) the Sec reta ry will seek to obtain, if any , and (3) the

c la ima nt i s e xpe c te d to pr ov ide , if any , a nd to r e qu e st that the c la ima nt pr ov ide any

e vid e nc e in h is possession that pe rtains to the claim. See38 U. S.C. § 5 10 3( a ); Pelegrini v. Principi , 18 Vet.App. 11 2, 11 9, 12 1 ( 20 04 ); Quartuccio v . Principi , 16 Vet.App. 183, 187 (2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2006). F urther, in Dingess v. Nicholson , the Court he ld that the VCAA applies "g ener ally to all five

e le me nts of a c la im fo r se rv ic e c onne c tio n. " 19 Ve t.A pp . 4 73 , 4 87 (2 00 6) ; see als o D'A mi c o v . W est , 209 F.3d 1322, 1327 ( Fe d. Cir. 2000) (noting that the five elements of a claim consist of (1) veter an
s t a tu s ; ( 2 ) e x i s t e n c e o f

a d i s a b i l i t y; ( 3 ) s e r

v i c e c o n n e c t i o no f

t h e d i s a b i l i t y; ( 4 ) d e g r e e o f

d i s a b i l i t y; and (5) eff

ective da te of the disability

).4

Acc eptanc e of a

n undesirable discharg e to esc ape tr ial by g ener al court-martial is considere d a d i s ch ar ge o r re l ea s e "u n d er d i s h o n o rab l e co n d i t i o n s
. " 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 3

. 1 2 (d )( 1 ). S u ch a d i s ch ar ge g ener ally "is a bar to the pay

ment of benefits." 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(b). Further , an honora ble or g ener al dis c ha rg e awa rd e d und e r the De pa

rtme nt of De fe ns e ' s SD RP g e ne ra lly " do e s n ot r e mov e any

ba r t o be ne fi ts. " 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 2( h) . N otw ith sta nd ingsu c h b ar to be ne fi ts, a c la ima nt m ay sti ll b e e lig ibl e fo r b e ne fi ts if it is established to the satisfaction of the Sec reta ry that , at t h e t ime of the co m mission of an offe nse lea ding to a person' s court-ma

rtial, dischar g e, or resig nat i o n , t h at person was insane, suc h a per son shall not be prec luded from benef its under l aws administ ere d by the S ecr etar y based upon the period of service from which suc h person wa s separ ated.
38 U. S.C. § 5 30 3( b) ; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(b) ( a discha rg e under dishonorable c onditions "is a bar to the pay ment of bene fits unless it is found t hat t he person was insane at the time of c ommitt ing the offe nse ca

using suc h discharg e" ). The a ppellant filed his claim in Marc h 2002. R. at 86. The RO issued its de cision on May 1, 2002. The a

ppellant was not provide d VCAA notice pr ior to the adjudication of his cla im, or at any time therea fter. See Mayfield v. Nicholson , 44 4 F .3 d 1 32 8, 13 33 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 6) (" What th e statut e
an d re gu l at i o nre qu i re i s t h at t h e c l ai m an t b e g i v e n t h e r eq u i re d i n fo rm at i o np ri o r t o t h e V A's de c isi on on the c la im. " ); Di ngess , 19 Vet.App. at 487. No notice, ipso f acto, cannot be g ood notice. Cf. Ma y fie ld , 444 F.3d at 1333 (holding that the duty to notify ca n n o t be satisfied w ith various d o cu m en t s n o ti s s u e d p u rs u an tt o t h e V C AA ). Ac co rd i n gl y , t h e C o u rt agr ee s wi t ht h e B o ar d 's finding that the Secr etar

y err ed in fa iling to provide V CAA-compliant notice. The Court must now deter mine whether t h e er

ror, a s determined by

the B oard, w as prejudicia l. See O verton v . Nicholson , 2 0 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 2 7 , 4 3 3 ( 2 0 0 6 ) (c i t i n g Conway v. Principi , 353 F.3d 1369, 1374- 75 (F ed. Cir. 2004)). B eca use there is no documentation in the re cord

rese mbling notice a s to the appellant' s vetera n status, nor evidence to demonstrate that the appellant had an a war eness of

the information and e vidence nece ssary to substantiate a cla im for bene fits, the Court is not convince d that the appellant was able to me aning fully participate in the adjudication of his claim. See O verton , 20 Ve t.A pp
. a t 44 3- 44 . H ow e ve r, the B oa rd is c or re c t th a t if

Mr . D e nn is5

was not insane at the time that he committed the offe nses lea d i n g to his discharg e, he w ould be ba rr e d f ro m e lig ibi lity

fo r b e ne fi ts. The insanity

exception is warra

nted " if it is estab l i s h ed t o t he satisfa ction of the Sec reta ry that, at the time of the c ommissi on of an of fense leadingto a per son' s . . . discharg e .
. . that person was insane ." 38 U .S.C. § 5303(b) . Her e, the B oard f ound that the appe llant's se rvice rec ords did not indicate that he was insane at the ti me t hat he committed the acts leadingto his discharg e. Thus, the B oa rd , a c tin g on be ha lf of the Se c re tary and in a c c or da nc e wi th the statut e and re g ulatio n, imp lic itl y deter mined that the insanity

exception was not applica ble. The B oard' s determination whether a claimant was insane at the time of commission of the offe nses for which he or

she was ultimately discharg ed is a question of fact t hat the Court re views

un de r t he " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s" sta

nd ard of re vie w. 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 4) ; see Stringham v. Brown, 8 Vet.App. 445, 448- 49 (1995) ( citing Cro pp e r v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 450, 454 (1994)) . "' A finding [of fact] is "cle arly

err oneous" when a lthough ther e is evidenc e to s upport it, the review ing c ourt on t h e e n t i re ev i d en ce i s l ef

twi t h t h e d ef

i n i t e a n d fi rm co n v i ct i o nt h at a mi s t ak e h as b ee nco m m i t t ed

. '" Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 9 , 5 2 (1 9 9 0 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. U.S. Gypsum Co. , 3 33 U. S. 364, 395 (1948))

. As with all of its findings a nd conclusions, including those conce rning the VCAA, the B oard is require d to inc lude in its decision a written statement of the rea sons or bases on all materia l issues of fa c t and law p re se nte d o n th e re c or d; t hat st a te me nt m

us t be a de qu a te to e na

ble an a pp e lla nt t o
un de rs tand

the pr e c ise ba sis fo r the B oa rd ' s de c isi on , a s we ll a s to fa c ili tate inf or me d re vie w in t

his Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); A l ld a yv
. B ro wn , 7 Vet.App . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. To comply with this requirement, the B oard must ana ly ze the cre dibilit y

and probative va lue of the e vidence , acc ount for the e vidence that it finds persuasive or unpersua sive, and provide the re asons for its re jection of a

ny materia l evidence favor abl e to the cla imant. See Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995), aff' d per curiam , 78 F.3d 604 (F ed. Cir. 1996) (ta ble); Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 57. I n deter mining that Mr. Dennis "was not insane" at the time that he c ommitt ed the of fense s leadingto his d i s ch ar ge, the B oard f ailed to discuss any

specific fac ts or evidenc e that led to that conclusion. The Court ha s long he ld that m er el y l i s ting the e vidence befor e stating a conc lusion6

does not constitute an ade quate sta t ement of reasons or bases. Abernathy v . Principi , 3 Vet.App. 461, 465 (1992). Acc ording ly , the C ourt holds that the Boa rd' s rea sons or bases w ere insufficient with respec t to its deter

mination that the appellant wa s not insane at the time of the commission of the offe nses that led to his discharg e. See A llday and G i l b e rt , both su pr a . Be c a

us e the Court

is unable to dete rmine the pre cise fa ctual basis for the Boa rd' s finding that the insanity exception was

no t a pp lic a ble , th e Court

c ann ot c on c lud e that th e no tic e e rr or in thi s case was no np re jud ic ia l. Acc ording ly , a re mand is require d to corre ct that er ror a nd to provide VCAA- compliant notice.

III . C ON CL USI ON Ba sed on the for eg oing a naly sis, the appellant' s and the Secre tary ' s briefs, a nd a re view of the re c or d o n a

pp e a l, t he B oa rd ' s O c tober 24 , 20 03 , d e c isi on is V AC AT ED and

the matte r i s REMANDED f

or fur ther de velopment and r eadjudication consistent with thi s opinion.