T he C o urt exp res ses i t s ap p reci at i o n to U ni vers i t y o f Id aho C o l l ege o f

Law , i n M o scow , Idaho , f o r host i ng 1 oral ar gu ment i n t hi s ca s e.

UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 08-2064
R I C HAR D C. RA U G U ST , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. E RI C K. S H I N SEKI , 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 ’ A pp e a ls (Argued Apr il 13, 2010 Dec ided J une 11, 2010) 1

Robert M. Kampfer , o f G re a t F a lls , M on tana , f or the a pp e lla nt. Mark M . McNabb , w ithwh om John H. Thompson , Acting Gene ral Counsel, R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel, J oa n E . M or iar ty , D e pu ty

As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for the appe llee.
Be fore HAGEL , MOORMAN, and LANCE, Judges

. HA GE L , Judge : R ic h ar d

C. Ra u g u s t a p p e a ls thr o u g h c o u n s e l a

M ar c h 2 0 , 2 0 0 8 , B o ar d

of Veter ans' Appea ls ( Boa

rd) decision denying him basic elig ibilit y for De partment of V eter ans Aff airs (VA) medical c are benef its. This a p p eal is timely , and the Court has jurisdiction to revie w the B oa rd ' s d e c isi on

purs ua nt t o 3 8 U .S. C. § § 7 25 2( a ) a nd 72 66 (a ). Th e c a se w as sent to a pa ne l to ad dre s s a n i s s u e o f f

i rs ti mp re s s i o n , wh i ch i s wh et h er t h e s t at u t e a n d

re gu l at i o nes t ab l i s h i n g a mandatory

24-month minim um service period befor e a veter an is e ligible for basic VA medica l car e vio la te s th e c on sti tut ion a l g ua ra nte e of e qu a l pr ote c tio n. B e c a

us e the Court

fi nd s th a t th e re wa s a
ratio na l ba sis fo r t

he min imum se rv ic e re qu ir e me nt, the statut e and re g ulatio n a t iss ue do no t vi olate the Equal Protec tion Cl ause, a nd the Court will affirm the B oard de cision.3 8 C .F .R . § 3 .1 2 a (b ) p ro v id e s tha t " [e ]x c e p t as p ro v id e d in p a ra g ra p h (d ) o f t h is se c tio n , a p e rs o n li ste d in 2 para gr aph ( c) of

t hi s s ect i on wh o do es not comp l et e a mi ni mum p er i od of ac t i ve dut y i s not el i gi bl e f or any b ene f

i t un der t i t l e 38, U n i t ed St at es Code or u n der a n y l aw a dmi n i s t er ed by t h e D epa r t men t of V et er an s Af

f ai r s ba s ed on t h at pe r i od of a ct i v e s er v i ce
. " Subs ect i on ( c) def

i nes per s ons i ncl uded un der t hi s s ect i on as any s er vi ce mem ber who en l i s t ed af t er Sept emb er 7, 198 0. Fi nal l y , s ubs ect i on ( d) pr ovi des ex cl us i ons t o t he gen er al r ul e, i ncl udi ng a s er vi ce mem ber r el eas ed un der an e a rly o u t o r h a rd sh ip d isc h a rg e p ro g ra m o r a p e rs o n d isc h a rg e d d u e a m e d ic a l d isa b ili ty o r se rv ic e -co n n e c te d d isa b ili ty.

2 I. F AC TS Mr. Raug ust se rved on active duty in the U.S. Army

betwee n October

1984 and Apr il 1986. Hi s ser vic e wa s cha

ra c te ri zed a s und e r hon or a ble c on dit ion s, a lth ou g h his ce rt if ic a te of re le a se lis ts "[m]i sconduct - pattern of misconduc t" a s the rea son for his sepa ration. Recor d (R.) at 52. I n September 2004, Mr . Raug ust requeste d acc ess t o VA h ea lth care benef its. I n Marc h 2005, a V A r e g io n a l o f

f ic e d e n ie d M r
. Ra

u g u s t' s a p p li c a ti o n f

o r v e te r an s me d ic a l b e n e f it s afte r
c on c lud ingtha

t he wa s n ot e nt it le d to su c h b e ne fi ts und e r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .1 2a be c a us e he ha d le ss than 24 months of continuous active military service afte r S eptember 1980. Mr. R august appea led 2 the dec ision. I n Marc h 2008, the Boa

rd issued the decision on appea l, de nying Mr. Raug ust eligibility for veter ans health car e benefits as a matter of law . The B oard f irst considere d whether

VA had satisfied its duty to assist pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5103A and 38 C.F .R. § 3.159. The B oard c oncluded that it was unnec essar

y to reviewVA' s compliance with its dut y t o as s i s t M r. Raugust, reasoningthat "be cause no rea sonable possibility exis ts that would aid in substantiating this claim, any defic iencies of [the Veter ans Claims Assistance Ac t of 2000] noti ce or assistance are moot." R. at 5. The B oard the n considere d whether Mr. Raug ust was elig ible for any VA bene fits pursuant to 3 8 C. F

. R. § § 3

. 1 2 a ( a ) ( 1 ) , ( b ) ( 2 0 0 8 )

. U n d e r th a t p r o v is io n , w it h s o me e xc e p ti o n s including discharg e due to ha

rdship, a v et era

n must serve for

a minimum of 24 months of active duty to be elig ible for VA m ed i ca l benef its. The Boa

rd found that Mr. Ra

ug ust's c ertificate of re lease or discharg e fr om a ctive duty (DD- 214) ref lected that he had serve d on active duty for 17 months and 25 day s: in other words, short of the 24-month elig ibilit y require ment. Be cause Mr. Raug ust did not satisfy the minimum active duty require ments , t h e Bo ar d denied his cla im as a matter of law. F ur the r, the B oa

rd a c kn ow le dg e d Mr. Ra

ugus t' s ar g ume nt that th e min imum se rv ic e re qu ir e me nts3

in 38 C.F.R. § 3.12a wer e unconstitutional, but declined to r u l e on the a rg ument beca

use " [t ]he Boa rd is not the appropr iate for um for this argument." R. at 7. On a pp e a l, M r. Ra

ugus t argue s th a t th e B oa rd e rr e d in fin din g that VA did no t hav e a du ty to o bta in f

ur the r m ili tary

re c or ds be y ond hi s D D- 21 4, e nli stm e nt c on tr a c t, a nd po rt ion s o f h is

e nli stm e nt p hy sic a l. A

pp e lla nt' s B ri e f ( B r. ) a

t 7- 8. Mr . Ra

ug us t als o asser

ts t hat th e 24 -m on th

se rv ic e min imum to qu a lif y fo r V A m e dic a l be ne fi ts i s unc on sti tut ional, as it vi olate s th e F if th Amendment' s Equal Protection Clause. Appe llant's B r. at 10-11. I n response, t h e Secr etar y contends that the Court should re ject Mr. Raugust's a

rg ument
c on c e rn ingthe du ty

to a ssi st b e c a

us e he h a s n ot a sse rt e d th a t f ur the r r e c or ds wo uld

be re le va nt t o establishing w hether

he met the 24- month se rvice require ment which statutorily bars VAmedical benef its. S ecr etar

y ' s Br

. at 5. Fur

ther, the Sec reta

ry argues that the minimum service r equire ment does not violate the F ifth Amendment' s Equal Protection C l ause beca use Cong ress e x presse d a rational ba sis for establishing the minimum s ervic e re quirement. Sec reta ry ' s Br . at 6-11.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Duty to A ssi st Pur su ant t o 38 U. S.C. § 51 03 A, the Se c re tary is re qu ir e d to " make re a so na ble e ff or ts t o a ssi st a cla imant in obtaining evide nce ne cessa ry to substantiate the claimant' s claim for be nefits." 38 U.S.C. § 5103A (a ). Un d er section 5103A(b) , the Secr etar y ' s duty to assist includes making

re a so na ble e ff or ts t o o bta in r e le va

nt r e c or ds , s o long as the c la ima nt a de qu a te ly

ide nti fi e s th os e
rec ords to the Secr etar

y and author izes the Secreta ry to obtain them. 38 U.S.C. § 51 0 3A(b)( 1). Un de r 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 A( c )( 1) , VA is re qu ir e d to make re a so na ble e ff or ts to ob ta in a ll re c or ds he ld by a g overnme ntal entity

that are rele vant t o t he cla im and that perta in to the claimant' s mili tary
se rv ic e if the c la ima

nt p ro vid e s th e Se c re tary

inf or matio n s uf

fi c ie nt t o lo c a te su c h r e c or ds

. Her e, the B oard did not fi n d t h at VA s atisfied its duty to assist, but i nstead found " any de fi c ie nc ie s o f [the Ve te ra ns Cla ims As sis tanc e Ac t of 20 00 ] not ic e or a ssi sta nc e are moo t" be c a

us e

" no re a so na

ble po ssi bil ity

e xists " that a dd iti on a l r e c or ds wo uld su bs tanti a te Mr . Ra

ugus t' s c la im. R. at 5. Mr. Raug ust a

rg ues that the Secre tary did not satisfy the duty to a ssist whe n he fa iled to seek additional service rec ords bec ause those r ecor ds may have addre ssed some of the exclusions to t he4

24-month minim um service require ment. Such except ions allow vetera ns who wer e discha

rg ed ba se d o n a

ha rd ship or earl y di sc ha

rg e a g re e me nt (see 10 U. S.C. § 1 17 3) or du e to a dis a bil ity to
re c e ive VAbe ne fits even if th at pe rs on did no t se rv e in t

he a c tiv e du ty

mil ita ry fo r 2 4 mo nth s. 38 C.F.R. § 3.12a(d)

. The Sec reta ry responds by

asser ting that a ny additional rec ords could not be rele vant beca

use Mr. Raugust's c ertificate of re lease from ac tive duty provides that he w as sepa rate d due to a pattern of misconduc t. There fore , the Secr etar y contends th at , as a matter of law, a ny additional rec ords could not be r eleva nt to the claim. I n reply , Mr. Raug ust char acte rizes the Secre tary ' s assertion that the a dditional recor ds could not be re levant as spe culation. Th e Se c re tary 's du ty to as sis t do e s n ot e xten d to ob ta ini ngre c or ds wh e n " no re a so na ble po ssi bilit y ex is ts that su c h a ssi sta nc e wo uld

a id i n s ub sta

nti a tin g the c la im. " 38 U. S.C. § 5103A(a )(2) . As the United States Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) stated in McG ee v . Peak

e , "Cong ress has expli citly define d the VA's duty to assist a vetera n with the fac tual de ve lop me nt o f a b e ne fi t c la im i n te rm s o f r e le va nc e ." 51 1 F .3 d 1 35 2, 13 57 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 8) ; see 38 U.S.C. 5103A(b)(1) . When review ing the Boa rd' s finding that rec ords are not r eleva nt, the Court loo ks to whe the r ( 1) the un ob ta ine d r e c or ds may be re late d to the c la im, or (2 ) t he re is a re a so na ble possibili ty that the rec ords could substantiate the claim. Golz v. Shinseki , 590 F.3d 1317, 1322 ( Fe d. Cir . 2 01 0) . M or e ov e r, the re " mus t be sp e cif ic re a so n to be lie ve the se re c or ds may g ive ri se to pe rt ine nt inf

or matio n, " su c h a s " sp e c if

ic a lle g a tio ns " fr om t

he c la ima nt t hat th e re c or ds are re le va

nt. Id. at 1323. The Court re views the B oard' s finding on the issue of re levanc e for clea r er ror. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4)

. Her e, the Secre tary found t hat t here was "no reasonable possibili ty " that additional rec ords would establish that Mr. Raug ust satisfied the 24-month minimum service require ment. R. at 5. The Court finds that Mr. Raug ust ha s not e stablished that this findingwas c lear ly err oneous. Se e Hi lk

e rt v. W est , 1 2 V e t. A p p
. 1 4 5 , 1 5 1 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( e n b an c ) ( h o ld in g th a t a p p e ll an t h a s th e b u r d e nof demonstrating err or). Althoug h Mr. Raug ust corre ctly asser ts that it i s conce ivable that additional milit ary rec ords would establish that one of the exceptions to the 24-month mi n i m u m s er v ice require ment applied, ther e is no " specific rea son to believe" that the re cords wo uld contain such information. Go lz , 590 F.3d at 1323. More telling ly , Mr. Raug ust has not made a spe cific a lleg ation that an exception would be established if the rec ords wer e obtained. Se e id . Wit hout a spec ific and5

cre dible rea son to believe that obtaining the ad d i t i o n al re cords would tend to e stablish that an exception to the 24- month minimum se rvice require ment applied to Mr. Raug ust's c laim, the Court

mus t c on c lud e that th e B oa rd did no t com mi t cle ar e rr or

in c on c lud ingthat th e re wa s n o n e e d to obtain additional rec ords. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1( a )( 4) ; Go lz , 590 F.3d at 1323. Mr. Raug ust's situation is di stinguishable f rom that in McG ee , w he re the F e de ra l Cir c uit he ld that the B oard e rre d by

failing to seek milita ry s ervic e re cords that c ould establish whether the veter an h ad fi l ed a cla im upon his di schar g e in ac corda nce w ith a statutory

provision. McG ee , 511 F.3d at 1358. I n McG ee , the ve te ra n wa s dis c ha

rg e d du e to a lun g dis or de r a nd wa s se e kin g to obtain an ef

fec tive date f

or his claim fr o m t h e time of his dischar g e. Pursuant to statute, whe n a service member is discha rg ed fr om active duty

beca use of a phy sical d i sability , the servic e depart m en t m u s t ensure that the individual files a cla im for VA be nefits or sig ns a wa iver establishing that the rig ht to make a c laim has bee n explained. Id . at 1355 (c iting 10 U.S.C. § 1218). I n McG ee , th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it h e ld th a t t h e B o ar d e r r e d b y f in d in g th a t t

h e r e w e r e n o p e rti n e nt
rec ords to be obtained without taking into account this statute, which required that a cla im either be submitt ed or w aived in the ve tera n' s particular

case
. Id . at 1358. Unlike in McG ee , there is no statutory or re g ulatory provision at play

here that would re qu ire the cr eation of additional potentially rele vant records. Although there are e x ceptions to the § 3.12a two-y ear minimum service require ment, there is nothing in that regulation or any other re g ulation or statute adva

nced by Mr. Raug ust or located by the Court that r equire s the cre ation of re cords that would be re levant to Mr. Raugust's c laim. The statute at issue in McG ee pr ov ide d th a t do c ume nts that w e re inh e re ntl y

re le va nt t o the ve te ra

n' s e ff e c tiv e date argume nt w e re su bje c t to the du ty

to

a ssi st. Th e re is n o c omp ara ble re qu ir e me nt i n M r. Ra ugus t' s c a se . T hu s, th ere w a s n o s pe c if ic

rea son for the Boa

rd t o seek a dditional recor ds that Mr. Raug ust never ide ntified or re quested. See Go lz , 590 F.3d at 1323. To the extent that Mr. Ra u gu s t asserts that the Boa rd should have, on its own, c onsidered whether he re ceive d a humanitar ian dischar g e, he f ailed to advanc e this argument befor e the r eg ional off ice or t he Bo a r d

. "The dut y to ass is t i s n ot a on e-way st reet ." W

ood v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 190, 193 (1992). I f Mr. Raugust had asser ted that he rec eived a humanitarian discha rg e (a nd thus fit into an exception to § 3.12a), there would be a basis for arguing that the Boa rd err ed by

failing6

to searc h for suc h documents. Howe ver, the mere possibili ty that an exception exist s is insufficient to trigg er the duty to seek out additional documents when there is no statutory require ment that such documents be cre ated. I n other words, VA is not obligated to embar k on an " ung uided safa

ri" to seek all potentially

rele vant re cords. Brokowski v. Shinsek i , 23 Vet.App. 79, 89 ( 2009). B . E qu a l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e I n h is b ri e f, Mr . Ra

ugus t argue d th a t th e 24 -m on th m ini mum se rv ic e re qu ir e me nt i n 38 C.F .R. § 3. 12 a to e sta

bli sh e lig ibi lity fo r mos t VA be ne fi ts vio late s the Eq ua l Pr ote c tio n Cl a

us e of the F if th A me ndme nt. Mr . Ra

ugus t a sse rt e d th a t th e pr ov isi on is unc on sti tut ion a l be c a us e it

cre ates " arbitra

ry absurdities" by

denying me dical ca

re to ve tera

ns who serve d one day less than 24 months while gr anting benef its to veter ans who had only fra ctionally longe r service

. Appellant' s Br

. at 10. At ora l argument, Mr. R august's attorney stated that the Sec reta

ry ' s analy sis on this question was pe rsuasive a

nd declined to a dvance hi s orig inal argument. He did not, howeve r, state that he

wa s wi t h d raw ing his orig inal argument. Acc ording ly , the Court will consider the a rg ument. S

ee Frankel v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 23, 25- 26 (1991). The a uthority for § 3.12a

derive s from 38 U.S.C. § 5303A, which provides for the same 24-

mon thm i n i m u m s e r

v i c e r e qu i r e m e n tf

o r v e t e r an s t o e s t a

b l i s h e n t i t l e m e n tt o m o s tV A b e ne fi ts, including he alth car e. The Court has jurisdiction to consider constituti onal cha lleng es to statutes and regulations pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7261(A)(3)( b). I t is well established that when le g islation i n v o lving g overnme ntal pay ment of monetar

y benef its "is challeng ed on equa l protection g rounds as being violative of the Fif th Amendment, the rat io nal bas is st and ard is th e app rop ri ate st and ard o f j ud ici al r evi ew. " Tal on v . B ro wn , 999 F.2d 514, 5 1 7 (F ed

. C i r. 1 9 9 3 ), ce rt

. d en i ed , 1 1 4 S

. C t

. 6 4 3 (1 9 9 3 ) ( ci t i n g United States R.R. Retirem ent Bd.

v . F rit z , 449 U.S. 166, 176 (1980)); Calif ano v. T o r res , 4 35 U. S. 1 , 5 (1 97 8) . T he ratio na l ba sis standard w ill also be applied wh en s o ci al welfa re le g islation is i nvolved, so long as fundamental constitutional rights or suspec t classes a re not involv ed. Se e Fr itz , 449 U.S. at 174. Under the rational ba sis standard of review, the Court will uphold a statute unless it is "' patently arbitra ry and irrat io nal .'" Sa un de rs v . B ro wn , 4 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 2 0 , 3 2 5 (1 9 9 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Fr itz , 449 U.S. at 177). Her e, the Court must first deter mine whether

acc ess to VA medica l car e pursua nt to section 53 03 A c an b e c la ssi fi e d a s a mon e tary be ne fi t or soc ia l we lf are pr og ra m to wh ic h th e ratio na l ba sisI n 19 81 , Con g r e s s r e c od i f i e d 10 U

. S. C. § 97 7 a s 38 U

. S. C. § 31 03 A, a n d i n 19 91 t h e pr ov i s i on was 3
r e n u m b e re d to it s c u rr e n t d e sig n a tio n a s 3 8 U .S .C . § 5 3 0 3 A

. See S

. R e p
. N. 9 7

- 1 5 3 , a t 3 9 ; P u b

. L

. 1 0 2

- 4 0 , Ti t l e I V, § 4 0 2 (b )( 1 ). 7 standard ma

y be applied. T here can be no doubt that it is a form of social we lfare , and thus subject t o the rational basis standard of revie w. Se e Fr itz , 4 4 9 U

. S

. a t 1 7 4

. A c c o r d i n g l y , the Cou rtwi ll

re vie w the 24 -m on th m ini mum se rv ic e re qu ir e me nt t o d e te rm ine wh e the r the re wa s a ratio na l ba sis for e stablishing it. Se e Fr itz , 4 49 U. S. at 17 4; se e als o Sa un de rs , 4 Vet.App. a t 325 (re viewing statute g overningentitlement to purcha sing life insurance under r ational basis standar d). Congr ess passed 10 U .S.C. § 977, the pre cursor to the curr ent sec tion 5303A, as par t of the 3 Depa rtment of De fense Authorization Act of 1981. The Senate c ommitt ee r eviewingthe bill stated that it

a do pte d an a me ndme nt to re str ic t e lig ibi lity fo r a ll be ne fi ts awa rd e d to in div idu a ls for ha ving se rved in the military to those who have completed two or more y ear s of active se rvice except in case s of injury or unusual circumstance s bey ond the individual's c ontrol. The committee ha s previou s l y expressed a se rious conce rn about the hig h level of attrition, much of which oc curs dur ing the first six months of active duty . Current e ligibility for b en ef

its at the six month point provides an incentive for attrition a

nd may contribute to the c ontinuing too hig h levels of attrition of first ter m personnel. S. Rep. No. 96-836, at 135 (1980) (orig inal in all upper case ). The committee repor t makes cle ar that the purpose of the 24-month minimum service require ment was to attempt to reduc e attrition among new membe rs of the military

. Th e Court

fi nd s th a t at le a st o ne purp os e fo r whic h Congress est a bli sh e d th e 24 -m on th min imum se rv ic e re qu ir e me nt m ay have be e n to re du c e a ttr iti on . We ho ld that th is p ro vid e s a rational basis for cre ating the elig ibilit y require ment. See Talon , 999 F.2d at 517. Encoura g ing ne w
re c ru its to r e ma in i n th e mil ita ry by wi thh old ingbe ne fi ts t o th os e wh o c ho os e to l e a ve e arl y is neither patently

arbitra ry nor irrational. Se e Sa un de rs , 4 Vet.App at 325. Thus, the Court finds that 38 U.S.C. § 5303A does not violate the Fif th Amendment' s Equal Protection Clause. Id

.8 III . C ON CL USI ON Upon consideration of the fore g oing, the Court A FF I RMS the Boa rd' s March 2 0 , 2 0 0 8, decision.