Fiscal Year 2009

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

REPORT OF THE CHAIRMAN
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Washington DC 20420

March 16, 2010

The Honorable Eric K. Shinseki

Secretary of Veterans Affairs

Department of Veterans Affairs

810 Vermont Avenue, N.W.

Washington, DC 20420

Dear Mr. Secretary:

I am pleased to present the Fiscal Year 2009 Report of the Chairman, Board of Veterans’ 

Appeals (Board or BVA), for inclusion in your submission to Congress. Information on the activities 

of the Board during Fiscal Year 2009 and the projected activities of the Board for Fiscal Years 2010 

and 2011, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(1), are provided in Parts I and II.

Fiscal Year 2009 saw the Board increase productivity to the highest level since Judicial Review 

was enacted in 1988 and conduct a record number of personal hearings. Although Veterans benefits 

law continued to change, the employees of the Board never lost sight of the mission to produce timely, 

quality decisions for the Veterans we serve. Nor did they lose sight of our obligation to treat Veterans 

and their families with care and compassion.

I believe the enclosed report will provide you, the Congress, and the Veterans we serve with an 

accurate and meaningful perspective on the Board’s activities of Fiscal Year 2009.

Very respectfully,

James P. Terry

Chairman

Enclosure
Page 1 Introduction

Page 3 PART I: ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS 

FISCAL YEAR 2009

Page 3 Successes

Page 4 Succession Planning

Page 5 The Board’s Goals for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

Page 5 1. Eliminate the Backlog 

Page 7 2. Expedited Claims Adjudication Initiative 

Page 7 3. Paperless Appeals

Page 8 4. Expand Use of Video Hearings

Page 8 5. Create Web-Based Tracking System

Page 8 6. Legislative Initiatives

Page 8 Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Testimony and Other Briefings

Page 9 Significant Judicial Precedent and Its Effect on the Board 

Page 11 Assistance to VBA Regional Offices and VHA

Page 11 Veterans Service Organization (VSO) Forums and Global Training 

Page 11 Veterans Law Review

Page 12 Volunteer Activities 

Page 12 Planning for the Future 

Page 13 BOARD MEMBERS 

Page 14 PART II: STATISTICAL DATA 

Page 18 PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011 

Page 19 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

Table of Contents
Introduction

The law requires that the Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board or BVA) report the 

activities of the Board at the conclusion of each fiscal year. This report includes two parts. Part I 

provides a discussion of BVA activities during Fiscal Year 2009 and projected activities for Fiscal 

Years 2010 and 2011. Part II provides statistical information related to BVA activities during Fiscal 

Year 2009 and projected activities for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011.

The Board makes final decisions on behalf of the Secretary on appeals from decisions of local 

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) offices. The Board reviews all appeals for entitlement to 

Veterans’ benefits, including claims for service connection, increased disability ratings, total 

disability ratings, pension, insurance benefits, educational benefits, home loan guaranties, vocational 

rehabilitation, dependency and indemnity compensation, and health care delivery.

The Board’s mission is to conduct hearings and issue timely, understandable and quality decisions for 

Veterans and other appellants in compliance with the requirements of law.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Fiscal Year 2009

Veterans Law Judges

1
PART I

ACTIVITIES OF THE 

BOARD OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

FISCAL YEAR 2009

The Board was established in 1933 and operates by authority of, and functions pursuant to, Chapter 

71 of Title 38, United States Code. The Board consists of a Chairman, Vice Chairman, Principal 

Deputy Vice Chairman, 60 Veterans Law Judges (VLJs), eight Senior Counsel, 312 staff counsel, and 

other administrative and clerical staff. The Chairman reports directly to the Secretary of Veterans 

Affairs. The Board is comprised of four Decision Teams with jurisdiction over appeals arising from 

the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Offices (RO) and Medical Centers in one of four 

geographical regions: Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, and West (including the Philippines). Each 

Decision Team includes a Deputy Vice Chairman, two Chief VLJs, 12 line Judges, two Senior 

Counsel, and 75 staff counsel. Staff counsel review the record on appeal, research the applicable law, 

and prepare comprehensive draft decisions or remand orders for review by a VLJ who reviews the 

draft and issues the final decision or appropriate preliminary order in the appeal.

The Board has jurisdiction over a wide variety of issues and matters, but the vast majority of appeals 

considered (95%) involve claims for disability compensation or survivor benefits. Examples of other 

types of claims that are addressed by the Board include fee basis medical care, waiver of recovery 

of overpayments, reimbursements for emergency medical treatment expenses, education assistance 

benefits, vocational rehabilitation training, burial benefits, and insurance benefits.

In Fiscal Year 2009, the Board issued 48,804 decisions and conducted 11,629 hearings with a cycle 

time of 100 days. Cycle time measures the time from the date an appeal is physically received 

at the Board until a decision is dispatched, excluding the time the case is with a Veterans Service 

Organization (VSO) representative. The cycle time of 100 days was 55 days faster than in 2008 and 

the lowest since 2004. The Board physically received 49,783 appeals in Fiscal Year 2009 and expects 

to receive at least that many appeals in Fiscal Year 2010.

During the past fiscal year, the Board hired 55 attorneys and law clerks to fill vacant staff counsel positions 

and to replace departing staff counsel. The Board recruited attorneys from 33 different law schools around 

the country. The Board attracts a very high caliber of applicant, with most newly hired attorneys having 

experience on Law Review or having served a Judicial clerkship prior to coming to the Board.

Successes

The Board issued 48,804 decisions in Fiscal Year 2009, an increase of 5,047 over the 43,757 decisions 

issued in Fiscal Year 2008. The Board’s productivity in Fiscal Year 2009 represents the greatest 

number of decisions issued by the BVA in any year since the beginning of judicial review of Board 

decisions in 1990. VLJs conducted 11,629 hearings, which is an increase of 977 hearings over Fiscal 

3
Year 2008 and the most hearings ever held by the Board in a year. All of the line VLJs exceeded 

their productivity goals and most traveled to at least three ROs to conduct one week of Travel Board 

hearings at each site. This productivity was possible because of the extraordinary efforts of the VLJs, 

staff counsel, and administrative support staff. 

In addition to dispatching the 48,804 decisions issued by the Board in Fiscal Year 2009, the 

Board’s administrative support staff reviewed 67,411 pieces of mail, determined the nature of the 

correspondence, and associated them with claims files. The administrative staff also answered over 

88,000 inquiries from Veterans or their representatives.

In Fiscal Year 2009, the Board focused on methods to increase decision output and the quality of the 

decisions rendered. The Board continued efforts to eliminate avoidable remands and increase decision 

output through the use of voluntary attorney overtime, production incentives for attorneys, and issuance 

of clear, concise, coherent, and correct decisions. BVA will continue to challenge its employees in the 

upcoming fiscal year to increase decision output even further and to maintain the high level of quality 

that was achieved in Fiscal Year 2009. The 94.0% accuracy rate for the fiscal year was virtually the 

same as the 94.8% accuracy rate for Fiscal Year 2008. The accuracy rate quantifies those substantive 

deficiencies that would be expected to result in a reversal or a remand by the Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims (CAVC). Quality deficiencies that are identified during the quality review process are 

addressed through appropriate follow-up training for the VLJs and attorneys.

Succession Planning

In Fiscal Year 2008, the Board obtained approval from the Secretary and the Office of Personnel Management 

(OPM) to create two Senior Executive Service (SES) positions and two Senior Level (SL) positions. The 

two SES positions are the Principal Deputy Vice Chairman and the Director of Management, Planning and 

Analysis. The two SL positions are the Chief Counsel for Operations and the Chief Counsel for Policy.

These new positions allow the Board to recruit the best and the brightest to manage Board operations, 

and are critically important in the increasingly complex world of Veterans benefits appellate 

adjudication. Since the creation of the CAVC and the rapidly increasing involvement of the U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), the complexity of BVA decisions has increased 

tremendously as the Board must comply with the decisions of our reviewing Courts. The number of 

claims filed at regional offices and medical centers continues to increase, and the Board’s workload 

will also increase at least proportionally to the increase of the workload of the originating agencies. In 

addition, the work of the Disability Benefits Commission suggests that Veterans’ benefits law is likely 

to continue to evolve. The intensified requirements of the claims adjudication system are aligned with 

the responsibilities of other SES and SL level officials.

These positions were filled in late 2008 and early 2009 and the dynamic leadership our employees 

brought to these positions was critical in propelling the Board to a very productive year. The Board’s 

new director of Management, Planning, and Analysis reorganized the Board’s administrative staff 

in order to remove the stovepipe effect and create a flatter structure to better facilitate oversight, 

coaching, mentoring, empowerment, and accountability. A key component of his organizational 

reengineering was the inclusion of a viable succession plan. The old structure provided little 

opportunity for career growth. By reducing the span of control, he placed all managers in a better 

4
position to monitor the work of their subordinates and provide the coaching and mentoring to assist 

them in becoming more efficient and effective.

The Board has eight Senior Counsel positions which function as a training ground for future VLJs. The 

creation, in Fiscal Year 2003, of two Senior Counsel positions on each decision team provides the necessary 

flexibility to maintain productivity despite short-term personnel shortages. Senior Counsel perform as 

Acting VLJs, Team Leaders, and attorneys drafting decisions. In addition, Senior Counsel mentor and 

evaluate newly hired attorneys and supervise more experienced attorneys in need of special attention or 

assistance. The creation of the Senior Counsel positions has allowed the Board’s current leaders to train and 

mentor future leaders and has provided significant advancement opportunities for our staff attorneys.

The Board also has a rigorous recruitment program and is able to hire some of the best qualified 

attorneys and administrative personnel available. In Fiscal Year 2009 the Board hired 55 new 

attorneys and law clerks, as well as 27 administrative professionals. The Board attracts high caliber 

law clerks, attorneys, and administrative personnel because the mission to serve Veterans is one that 

is particularly attractive to those seeking a career in public service. During the summer of Fiscal Year 

2009, the Board hired 10 law clerks to work with attorneys and VLJs to draft decisions and other 

work products. In addition to completing challenging writing assignments, the summer law clerks 

also participated in training activities and were mentored by BVA attorneys. The goal is to have them 

apply for permanent employment with the Board after graduation.

The Board’s Goals for Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011

The Board’s challenge is to transform into a 21st century organization that will strive to reduce the backlog 

of appeals, increase efficiency, and leverage technology to better serve Veterans. These goals will be 

achieved by being people-centric, results-driven, and forward-looking while planning new initiatives.

1. Eliminate the Backlog

The Board will continue to focus in the coming year on eliminating the backlog, within existing 

resources, by concentrating on the following:

 Eliminating avoidable remands: Fewer remands mean fewer appeals returned to the Board 

and, thus, a reduced backlog. At the end of Fiscal Year 2004, there were 31,645 remands 

pending at VBA. By the end of Fiscal Year 2009, that number had decreased to 27,251. The 

Board tracks the reasons for remand and shares those reasons with the Agency of Original 

Jurisdiction (AOJ) for training purposes. The Board also will request a waiver of initial AOJ 

review of new evidence submitted directly to the Board. By soliciting waivers in those cases 

where an appellant or representative submits evidence without a waiver, the Board can in many 

cases avoid unnecessary remands.

 Strengthening BVA’s intra-agency partnerships: Joint training efforts with VBA, the Office 

of the General Counsel (OGC), and the Veterans Health Administration (VHA) will improve 

case development and decision quality and reduce remands. In addition, BVA meets with 

representatives from VHA, VBA and OGC on a monthly basis to discuss and resolve issues of 

mutual concern that adversely impact the quality of case output.

5
 Training: In 2009 the Board decided to upgrade its training office with additional staff. A 

new senior counsel training coordinator will reorganize training evolutions for the Board’s 

attorneys and judges. The Board will also expand training to include VBA, OGC, and VHA 

as well, to ensure that all segments of the benefits system will make consistent and accurate 

decisions for Veterans. Training for new attorneys in Fiscal Year 2009 included courses on 

basic Veterans’ law and off-site training at the Adjudication Academy in Baltimore. The latter 

training included overview presentations on the functions of the ROs, OGC, VSOs, the U.S. 

Army and Joint Services Records Research Center (JSRRC), the Appeals Management Center, 

and the VA Medical Centers. Throughout the past year, the Board’s professional staff attended 

courses on topics such as Adjudicating Dental Claims, Introduction to Medical Terminology, 

The Cardiovascular System, Evidence Verification, Common Medical Questions in BVA 

Adjudications, Efficiency in Decision Writing, and Evaluation of Lay Evidence. Continued 

training efforts in the new fiscal year will provide the VLJs and attorneys with the latest 

information on a variety of legal and medical topics.

 Writing clear, concise, coherent, and correct decisions: The Board’s leadership continued 

to stress to the VLJs and attorneys the value of writing clear, concise, coherent, and correct 

decisions in Fiscal Year 2009. The benefits of this initiative continued to be apparent, and the 

Board issued more decisions than anticipated. In the long term, it is expected that this initiative 

will enable VLJs and attorneys to continue to produce more and better quality Board decisions.

 Utilizing employee incentive, mentoring, and training programs: A number of programs 

have been introduced to increase employee motivation and satisfaction as well as to increase 

productivity and decision quality. Two of the most popular programs are the student loan 

repayment program and the flexiplace program. The student loan repayment program provides 

for loan assistance for up to eight highly qualified attorneys per year. Attorneys selected 

for this program are required to remain with the Board for at least three years and maintain 

exceptional levels of achievement in all critical areas of performance. Effective November 1, 

2005, the Chairman authorized a permanent flexiplace program to permit a limited number of 

attorneys to prepare draft decisions and other work products at their primary residence (a pilot 

flexiplace program had been in effect since 1999). This program enabled the Board to retain 

attorneys who might otherwise have resigned due to the location of the primary residence, 

other personal reasons, or because another agency would allow more extensive telecommuting. 

In connection with this program, the Board successfully implemented a number of data 

security safeguards, such as encryption software for Board laptops used by flexiplace program 

participants, and locked cabinets at the primary residence for the laptop and original claims 

folders. Each flexiplace participant agrees to abide by the rules of the program, which include 

strict safeguards to protect sensitive data. Participants are not permitted to use their own 

personal computers for drafting decisions, and the home work sites are periodically inspected 

to ensure continued compliance with the Board’s rules.

 Making use of overtime: The Board will continue to use overtime within existing resources to 

enhance output.

These measures will work to reduce the backlog and to shorten the time it takes for a Veteran to 

receive a fair, well-reasoned Board decision. 

6
2. Expedited Claims Adjudication Initiative

At the direction of the Secretary and in coordination with VBA, the Board proposed an Expedited 

Claims Adjudication (ECA) initiative that was launched in February 2009 as a two-year pilot program 

at four select ROs. In order to help accelerate the timely processing of all claims and appeals, VA 

offers represented claimants the option of participating in the ECA initiative for expedited processing 

of claims and appeals. A claimant who elects to participate in the ECA voluntarily waives specified 

procedural rights and, in return, is placed on a fast track for adjudication. The expected rapid 

disposition of these claims should reduce the backlog and thereby ultimately improve the overall 

timeliness of claims processing.

Participation in the ECA initiative is offered in writing by VA as an option when a claim is received. 

During the pilot program, participation extends to claims for benefits administered by VBA at four select 

locations (Philadelphia, Nashville, Lincoln, and Seattle) for claimants who are represented. Participation 

is open to claims for disability compensation benefits under 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, excluding a narrow 

class of claims including pension benefits, survivor benefits, and simultaneously contested claims.

In addition to expedited claims at a participating RO, any claims appealed to the Board under the ECA

initiative will be screened upon arrival at the Board to ensure that the record is adequate for decisional 

purposes when the appeal reaches its place on the Board’s docket. If the record is inadequate, 

the Board will take prompt action under existing regulations, such as soliciting a waiver of RO 

consideration of additional evidence, and remand the case for further development, if necessary.

By the middle of November 2009 there had been 755 claims adjudicated under the ECA with an 

average days to complete of 131.3 compared with 156.7 for all claims nationwide. The Board held 

hearings in October 2009 for the first two ECA appeals that have come to the Board. These appeals 

arrived at BVA less than nine months after the initial claim was filed at an RO. These statistics suggest 

that the ECA can be very effective at increasing efficiency of the claims and appeals process. The 

Department is very excited about this program and the positive impact expected in speeding up the 

adjudication of claims and appeals before VA.

3. Paperless Appeals

In Fiscal Year 2009 the Board held one hearing with a paperless record and completed three paperless 

appeals. For some time now, VA has been processing Benefit Delivery at Discharge (BDD) claims for 

separating servicemembers by using a paperless claims processing system at ROs in Salt Lake City, 

Utah and Winston-Salem, North Carolina. The appeals of these claims have begun to reach the Board 

and have allowed the Board the opportunity to begin planning how to handle the expected growing 

caseload of paperless appeals. The Board has found several areas of improvement while working 

on these appeals and those will be implemented to make other appeals proceed as expeditiously as 

possible. Paperless claims and appeals provide many benefits to Veterans and to VA. Electronic files 

are secure from loss or damage and are backed up daily. In addition, electronic files are not subject to 

mailing delays between offices, and allow multiple offices to work on parts of the file simultaneously, 

preventing the need for down-time while another office works on the claim. The Board fully supports 

VA’s goal of increasing the use of paperless claims and appeals processing and expects a significant 

increase in paperless appeals in the coming years.

7
4. Expand Use of Video Hearings

The Board will leverage video conferencing technology to increase the capability and access to video 

hearings. The Board will work with the Office of Information and Technology (OI&T) to upgrade 

the current video conferencing technology both at BVA and at ROs. When the Board moves to a new 

location in 2011, the number of video hearing rooms will increase from 5 to 13. The Board also is 

working with VBA and VHA to allow video hearings to be held from more locations in the field (other 

than just ROs) which will make it more convenient for Veterans and make the video option more 

appealing. Initially, BVA will use the expanded video capability to reduce the backlog of hearings. 

Updating and expanding the Board’s video capability will reduce the time Veterans currently wait 

for their hearing, will reduce the Veteran’s travel time to reach a video site, and will allow VLJs to 

recapture travel days as decision-generating workdays.

5. Create Web-Based Tracking System

The Board will work with VBA and other VA offices to create an on-line tracking system that will 

allow Veterans to check the status of their claims and appeals. This system will provide up-to-date 

information to Veterans and will promote transparency and improve customer service. The Board 

expects a significant reduction in Congressional, telephone, and written inquiries as soon as the status 

and location of claims and appeals is available to Veterans and their representatives on line. This will 

allow staff to spend less time responding to inquiries and more time processing appeals.

6. Legislative Initiatives

In October 2009, the Chairman testified before the House Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and 

Memorial Affairs in support of parts of a draft bill. VA, as represented by the Chairman, supported a section 

of the bill that would provide for an automatic waiver of AOJ consideration for evidence submitted to VA 

after the filing of a Substantive Appeal. If an appellant wished to not waive AOJ consideration, he or she 

would be free to specifically request non-waiver, but the default position would be to send the evidence 

directly to the Board. This would have the effect of streamlining the appellate process and improving 

efficiency while still ensuring that appellants’ rights are protected. VA is in the process of advancing several 

other legislative proposals also aimed at increasing efficiency and streamlining the appellate process.

Fiscal Year 2009 Congressional Testimony and Other Briefings

During the fiscal year, the Chairman testified before the Senate Veterans Affairs Committee and the 

House Subcommittee on Disability Assistance and Memorial Affairs regarding the appellate process. 

The Chairman also testified before the House Subcommittee regarding draft legislation addressing 

the CAVC and the appellate process. In addition, the Chairman, or his representatives, discussed the 

Board’s successes, challenges, and general activities at the New Jersey Association of Veterans Service 

Officers Annual Training, the National Association of County Veterans Service Officers Convention, 

the Disabled American Veterans 88th National Convention and Legislative Seminar, and the Ohio 

Association of County Veterans Service Officers Conference.

In addition, the Chairman briefed both majority and minority staff of the Senate and House Veterans 

Affairs Committees on the “State of the Board”.

8
Significant Judicial Precedent and Its Effect on the Board 

 Shinseki v. Sanders, 129 S.Ct. 1696 (2009):

In Shinseki v. Sanders the Supreme Court (Court) overturned the decisions of the Federal Circuit in 

Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007) and Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892 (Fed. Cir. 

2007). The question presented in this case concerned which party (i.e. the appellant or VA) bears the 

burden of proof in the context of a prejudicial error analysis when the appellant alleges that the agency 

provided defective notice under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act (VCAA). Specifically, the Court 

addressed the validity of the Federal Circuit’s holding that when VA provides a deficient VCAA notice 

letter in any respect, that deficiency must be presumed prejudicial, requiring reversal unless VA can 

rebut the presumption by showing that the error did not affect the essential fairness of the adjudication.

The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s framework as conflicting with established law, and in 

particular, the statutory requirement that the CAVC “take due account of the rule of prejudicial 

error.” It determined that the framework was too complex and rigid, that the presumption set forth 

by the Federal Circuit imposed unreasonable evidentiary burdens upon VA, and noted that the 

framework would often require the CAVC to treat as harmful those errors that in fact were harmless. 

Accordingly, the Court held that where an appellant seeks to have a judgment set aside because of a 

defective VCAA notification letter, he or she carries the burden of showing that prejudice resulted. 

The implication of this case is vast, as it relieves VA of satisfying a heavy evidentiary burden that 

ultimately would not alter the outcome of the appeal, and prevents unnecessary reversals where a 

VCAA notice letter error would not have impacted the substantive rights of the appellant.

 Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d. 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009):

In this case, the Federal Circuit addressed a matter of first impression, namely, whether 

an individual applying for VA benefits is entitled to the protections guaranteed by the Due 

Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. Such protections include fair adjudication of a claim, 

appropriate notice, and the opportunity for a hearing.

In addressing this issue, the Federal Circuit examined the Supreme Court’s treatment of 

administrative proceedings before the Social Security Administration, and observed that 

the Court had strongly implied that certain due process rights attach to those proceedings. 

Analogizing claims for Social Security benefits to claims for benefits administered by VA, and 

citing to other supportive precedent, the Federal Circuit concluded that the Due Process Clause 

attaches to an individual’s claim of entitlement to VA disability benefits. This significant 

holding establishes that claimants seeking VA benefits will have the right to fair adjudication, 

notice, and the opportunity for a hearing on a constitutional basis distinct from any other 

statutory or regulatory provisions setting forth similar protections.

 Vazquez-Flores v. Shinseki, 580 F.3d. 1270 (Fed. Cir. 2009):

The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the decision of the CAVC in Vazquez-Flores v. 

Peake, 22 Vet. App. 37 (2008). In that decision the CAVC held that proper notice under the 

VCAA for an increased compensation claim required notice tailored to the specific disability 

of a particular Veteran, to include information such as alternative diagnostic code criteria 

that would not be satisfied by evidence generally showing that a disability had worsened or 

increased in severity. The CAVC also held that VCAA notice must inform the Veteran that he 

or she should submit evidence describing the effects on daily life.

9
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the CAVC decision, holding that VA is not required 

to give Veteran-specific notice, nor must evidence pertaining to the Veteran’s daily life 

necessarily be obtained prior to adjudication. In so finding, the Federal Circuit relied on past 

precedent of the VCAA requiring only generic notice based on a particular type of claim, and 

held that such Veteran-specific notice as required by the CAVC’s decision cannot be considered 

generic notice. Further, it held that the statutory authority for the schedule of ratings is based 

entirely on the average impairment of earning capacity, and therefore it is not a breach of duty 

if VA does not specifically request evidence related to effect on daily life.

 Rice v. Shinseki, 22 Vet. App. 447 (2009):

In this decision, the CAVC held that a request for a total disability rating based on individual 

unemployability (TDIU) is not a separate, freestanding claim for benefits, but rather involves 

an attempt to obtain an appropriate rating for a disability or disabilities. Therefore, entitlement 

to TDIU should properly be considered, for effective date purposes, as either a part of the 

underlying determination of the appropriate initial disability rating to be assigned following 

the grant of service connection or, if a disability upon which entitlement to TDIU is based has 

already been found to be service-connected, as part of a claim for increased compensation. 

Establishing the effective date of TDIU will depend on this distinction, particularly as different 

statutory and regulatory provisions apply depending on whether the claim is an initial disability 

claim or one for increased compensation.

 Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37 (2009):

This appeal presented the issue of whether the requirement that a claimant file a timely 

Substantive Appeal under 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3) is a jurisdictional predicate to the Board’s 

adjudication of a matter, particularly in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Bowles v. 

Russell, 551 U.S. 205 (2007), which held that jurisdictional time periods for taking an appeal 

may not be extended for equitable reasons.

In distinguishing Bowles, the CAVC held that section 7105(d)(3) does not operate as a 

jurisdictional bar that precludes the Board’s consideration of an appeal where the Substantive 

Appeal is untimely. The CAVC specifically noted that, while section 7105(d)(3) provides that 

the agency of original jurisdiction “may” close a case if a Substantive Appeal is not timely 

filed, such action is discretionary, not mandatory. Given the permissive nature of section 

7105(d)(3), including the express authority to grant indeterminate extensions of time, the 

CAVC held that VA may waive its objection to an untimely Substantive Appeal, and that the 

Board may properly adjudicate a matter where there has been such waiver because the 60-day 

filing period is not jurisdictional in nature. While the Board’s regulations refer to the timely 

filing of a Substantive Appeal as constituting a jurisdictional question, the CAVC stated that it 

need not provide any deference to this interpretation given that the statute is clear on its face.

 Clemons v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 1 (2009) (per curiam):

This decision addressed the scope of a claim for service connection where the diagnoses of 

record differ from the specific condition claimed by the appellant. The Board denied the 

Veteran service connection for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) on the basis that he did 

not have the condition. The Board’s decision focused solely on PTSD, and did not discuss the 

possibility of service connection for other psychiatric diagnoses of record, including an anxiety 

disorder and a schizoid disorder.

10
The CAVC held that an appellant is generally not competent to diagnose his or her mental 

condition and is only competent to identify and explain the symptoms that he or she observes 

and experiences. Therefore, the Board should not confine its consideration of a claim to an 

appellant’s belief, as indicated on an application form, that he or she suffers from a particular 

disorder, such as PTSD. The CAVC instead held that a claim for a specific diagnosis must be 

considered a claim for any disability that may reasonably be encompassed by several factors 

including: (1) the claimant’s description of the claim; (2) the symptoms the claimant describes; 

and (3) the information the claimant submits or VA obtains in support of the claim. Thus, the 

CAVC found that the Board erred in this case by failing to weigh and assess the nature of the 

current condition the appellant suffered when determining the breadth of the claim before it.

Assistance to VBA Regional Offices and VHA

During the past year the Board continued its efforts to help the ROs reduce their backlog of cases on appeal 

through the Travel Board program. For most Travel Boards, an attorney travels with a VLJ to an RO to assist 

in preparing for scheduled hearings. Generally, 43 hearings per judge are scheduled each week. During the 

course of the week, the attorneys often provide various types of assistance and training to the RO staff.

In Fiscal Year 2009, 161 attorneys provided assistance to 57 ROs. The attorneys conducted training 

for adjudication personnel at 44 of the ROs visited. With respect to appeals originating from VA 

hospitals, the Board participated in conference calls with the VHA staff across the country that handle 

appeals to the Board to discuss issues of concern related to the processing of claims and appeals. In 

addition, the Board provided training on medical center appeals at several locations.

Veterans Service Organization (VSO) Forums and Global Training

The Chairman invites the VSOs and attorneys who represent appellants before the Board to VSO 

Forums on a quarterly basis. These meetings address questions that are raised by representatives and 

also facilitate the exchange of ideas and information. An update on the Board’s activities is provided, 

and matters of general interest are addressed.

The Board also provides global training to VSO representatives who are co-located with the 

Board to familiarize them with our processes and procedures and with the various functions of the 

administrative personnel, attorneys, and VLJs. VSOs are also invited to provide training to attorneys 

and judges and to participate in the in house training that is provided to BVA staff.

Veterans Law Review

During Fiscal Year 2009, the Board published the first edition of the Veterans Law Review. This new 

journal provides a scholarly look at Veterans benefits law and other issues facing the Board and VA. 

The Veterans Law Review offers the opportunity for attorneys at the Board, in the Office of General 

Counsel, and in the private bar to write on topics critical to the rights of Veterans and the legal obligations 

of those who serve them. The Veterans Law Review also reviews books addressing Veterans benefits 

and includes case notes as well. Articles in the first edition were authored by both VA and non-VA 

employees. The second annual issue will be published in early 2010.

11
Volunteer Activities

The Board proudly supports Veterans and their families and educates VA employees by creating educational 

exhibits at the Board on subjects such as the Vietnam War, the Korean conflict, Operation Enduring Freedom, 

Operation Iraqi Freedom, female Veterans, and Prisoners of War (POWs). The Board also facilitates the 

collection and donation of comfort items for distribution to Veterans at the Washington VA Medical Center 

and the United States Armed Forces Retirement Home (U.S.A.F.R.H.); distributes United States Department 

of Defense, VA POW/MIA Day and Veterans Day posters to Veterans; collects Toys for Tots for the United 

States Marine Corps Reserve; and facilitates the collection of calendars and valentines for Veterans to 

distribute at the U.S.A.F.R.H. The Board also participates actively in the Combined Federal Campaign.

Planning for the Future

 Leadership Initiative: The Leadership Initiative (LI) provides opportunities for all Board 

employees, as well as employees of other organizations within and outside of VA, to improve their 

leadership skills through training, mentoring, and networking. Events during Fiscal Year 2009 

included a networking breakfast, a presentation on career development at the Board, a luncheon for 

Administrative Professionals Day, a mock hearing for Take Your Children to Work Day, a luncheon 

for the Excellence in Leadership Award, and a program addressing becoming a Senior Counsel.

 Non-BVA Training Initiatives: The Board sends high producing, high quality attorneys, VLJs, and 

administrative professionals to Leadership VA, as well as leadership seminars and programs offered 

through OPM’s Federal Executive Institute and its Management Development Centers. Two 

employees were competitively selected to attend Leadership VA during the past year, which seeks 

to contribute to the development of leaders within VA. Through a series of experiences, Leadership 

VA strives to provide an integrated view of VA to further the goal of achieving One VA, explore 

the internal and external forces affecting VA, give insight into the current and predicted challenges 

facing the Department in its delivery of services and benefits to the Veterans’ community, provide 

interchange between officials from various levels and organizational elements of VA, and increase 

leadership skills and provide opportunities for refining them through practice in group settings. The 

Board also selected two employees to attend Leadership for a Democratic Society at the Federal 

Executive Institute. This comprehensive four-week course builds the participants’ knowledge 

and skills in personal leadership, transforming public organizations, and the policy framework in 

which Government leadership occurs. Finally, the Board sent 15 employees to OPM Management 

Development Centers to participate in courses such as the Supervisory Leadership Seminar: 

Learning to Lead, and to other leadership development courses. All of these various training 

courses are an integral part of the Board’s plan to develop its future leaders.

 Facilities: The Board began planning for a facility move which is scheduled to take place 

in FY 2011. The Board is meeting on a regular basis with representatives from the General 

Services Administration, VA’s Office of Administration, VA’s Office of Information and 

Technology, and others to ensure that the needs of the Board, our VSO partners, Veterans, and 

other appellants who visit our facilities will be met. The Board’s current location, the Lafayette 

Building at 811 Vermont Avenue, NW, is scheduled for a complete renovation starting in FY 

2011. The Board’s move is expected to be temporary, with a return to the Lafayette Building 

contemplated once renovations have been completed.

12
Keith W. Allen

Marjorie A. Auer 

Kathy A. Banfield

Barry F. Bohan

Derek R. Brown

Anna M. Bryant

Dennis F. Chiappetta, Jr.

Vito A. Clementi

Barbara B. Copeland

Cherry O. Crawford

John J. Crowley

Thomas J. Dannaher

Paula M. DiLorenzo

Shane A. Durkin

Frank J. Flowers

Kathleen Gallagher

Mary Gallagher

George E. Guido, Jr.

Mark F. Halsey

Milo H. Hawley

Mark D. Hindin

Linda Anne Howell

Vicky L. Jordan

Susan L. Kennedy

Michael E. Kilcoyne

Jonathan B. Kramer

Michael S. Lane

Mary Ellen Larkin

Michael D. Lyon

James L. March

James A. Markey

Joy A. McDonald

Jacqueline E. Monroe

Andrew J. Mullen

John E. Ormond, Jr.

Kalpana M. Parakkal

Alan S. Peevy

Renee M. Pelletier

Ursula R. Powell

Harvey P. Roberts

Ronald W. Scholz

Howard N. Schwartz

George R. Senyk

Deborah W. Singleton

Susan S. Toth

Claudia Trueba

Stephen L. Wilkins

Richard F. Williams

BOARD MEMBERS

James P. Terry, Chairman

Steven L. Keller, Vice Chairman

Laura H. Eskenazi, Principal Deputy Vice Chairman

Steven L. Cohn, Deputy Vice Chairman, Decision Team 1

Michelle L. Kane, Chief Member

Robert E. Sullivan, Chief Member

Joaquin Aguayo-Pereles, Deputy Vice Chairman, Decision Team 2

Kimberly E. Osborne, Chief Member

David C. Spickler, Chief Member

Nancy R. Robin, Deputy Vice Chairman, Decision Team 3

Wayne M. Braeuer, Chief Member

Cheryl L. Mason, Chief Member

Mary M. Sabulsky, Deputy Vice Chairman, Decision Team 4

Mark W. Greenstreet, Chief Member

Holly E. Moehlmann, Chief Member

VETERANS LAW JUDGES

13
PART II

STATISTICAL DATA

Fiscal Year (FY) 2009 Information

The following information is required by 38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2):

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(A)

Number of cases physically received at the Board during FY 2009: 49,783

Number of cases added to docket by filing appeal during FY 2009: 51,481

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(B)

Cases pending before the Board at the start of FY 2009: 36,452*

Cases pending before the Board at the end of FY 2009: 40,688*

*Includes certified appeals pending in the field awaiting hearings, as well as cases pending at BVA.

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(C)

Number of cases received at BVA and new appeals filed during each of the 36 months preceding FY 2009.

Cases Received at BVA New Appeals (VA Form 9 ) Filed

Month FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

3,750

3,610

3,182

4,142

3,886

4,293

2,575

3,093

3,341

2,941

3,313

3,676

3,206

2,754

3,275

2,949

3,404

3,498

2,854

3,532

3,190

3,695

4,281

3,179

3,713

3,201

2,767

3,248

3,701

4,351

3,337

3,121

3,279

3,107

3,443

3,648

3,459

2,879

3,766

3,462

3,691

4,467

5,145

4,278

5,011

4,653

4,466

4,506

3,700

3,631

3,559

3,899

3,871

4,357

3,615

4,115

4,381

3,531

3,920

3,497

3,341

3,321

3,196

3,615

3,519

4,085

3,694

4,170

3,963

3,855

3,993

3,585

4,133

3,646

2,956

3,703

3,579

3,389

3,651

3,629

3,559

3,696

3,517

3,893

4,497

3,392

3,590

3,730

3,840

4,593

4,459

3,801

4,632

5,003

4,650

5,294

FY Total 41,802 39,817 40,916 49,783 46,076 44,337 43,351 51,481

14
Cases Received at BVA FY 06 - FY 09

New Appeals (VA Form 9) Filed FY 06 - FY 09

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Estimate

41,802 39,817 40,916

49,783

55,000

70,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Estimate

46, 076 44, 337 43, 351

51, 481

60, 000

70,000

15
38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(D)

The average length of time a case was before the Board between the time of the filing of an appeal and 

the disposition during the preceding fiscal year:

Time Interval Responsible

Party

Average Elapsed

Processing Time

Notice of Disagreement Receipt 

to Statement of the Case Field Station 222 days

Statement of the Case Issuance 

to Substantive Appeal Receipt Appellant 43 days

Substantive Appeal Receipt to 

Certification of Appeal to BVA Field Station 590 days

Receipt of Certified Appeal to 

Issuance of BVA Decision* BVA 227 days

Average Remand Time Factor** Field Station 535 days

* This time includes the Board’s accountable time (cycle time) of 100 days. Cycle time measures the 

time an appeal is physically received at the Board until a decision is reached, excluding the time the 

case is with a VSO representative.

** The Board changed the methodology to more accurately reflect the amount of time and effort it 

takes in the field to re-work remanded cases.

Historical Methodology

8,070,831 (total days post remands in the field (until returned to BVA))

48,804 (divided by total number of decisions during FY 2009) = 165 days

New Methodology

8,070,831 (total days post remands in the field (until returned to BVA))

15,084 (divided by total number of post remand decisions during FY 2009) = 535 days

16
38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(E)

The number of members of the Board at the end of FY 2009: 60 members

The number of professional, administrative, clerical and other personnel employed by the Board at the 

end of FY 2009: 500 employees not including 60 members above.

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(F)

Number of acting members of the Board during FY 2009: 80

Number of cases in which such members participated: 7,832

38 U.S.C. § 7101(c)(2)

Number of acting members of the Board in terms of full-time employee equivalents: 10.4

17
PROJECTIONS FOR 

FISCAL YEARS 2010 AND 2011

The following information is required by 38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(3):

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(3)(A)

Estimated number of cases that will be appealed to BVA:

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(3)(B)

Evaluation of the ability of the Board (based on existing and projected personnel levels) to ensure 

timely disposition of such appeals as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7101(a):

The indicator used by the BVA to forecast its future timeliness of service delivery is BVA “response 

time” on appeals. By taking into account the Board’s most recent appeals processing rate and the 

number of appeals that are currently pending before the Board, BVA response time projects the 

average time that will be required to render decisions on that group of pending appeals. For response 

time computation, the term “appeals pending before the Board” includes appeals at the Board and 

those that have been certified for BVA review but are held in the field pending BVA Travel Board or 

video conference hearings.

The following categories are calculated as follows:

FY 2009 decisions (48,804) divided by = 186.99 Decisions per Work Day

261 work days

Cases Pending end of FY 2009 (40,688) = 100,688 = Total Workload in FY 2010

+ New Cases expected in FY 2010 (60,000)

Total Workload (100,688) (divided by) = 538 Work Days

Decisions per Work Day (186.99)

Work Days (538) (divided by) = 2.1 Years

261 work days 

Work years (2.1) x 12 (months) = 25.2 months

Fiscal Year 2010: Cases received at BVA: 55,000

Cases added to BVA Docket: 60,000

Fiscal Year 2011: Cases received at BVA: 60,000

Cases added to BVA Docket: 66,000

18
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Potential BVA Workload in VBA (information)

Number of New Notices of Disagreement Received in the Field

Month FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

8,967

7,989

7,594

8,715

8,322

9,815

8,122

9,093

8,700

7,630

8,576

7,717

9,288

8,131

7,400

8,701

8,154

9,551

8,615

8,836

8,573

8,627

9,326

7,550

10,217

8,781

7,962

9,552

9,654

10,020

10,245

9,745

9,704

10,230

9,503

8,838

12,036

9,530

10,229

10,627

10,709

12,226

11,633

10,767

11,926

11,813

11,119

10,761

FY Total 101,240 102,752 114,451 133,376

Notices of Disagreement Received FY 06 - FY09

FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Estimate

101,240 102,752

114,451

133,376 135,000

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000

140,000

150,000

19
Potential BVA Workload in VBA

BVA Dispositions by VA Program

FY 2009

APPEAL 

PROGRAM ALLOWED REMANDED DENIED OTHER TOTAL

No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

Burial Benefits

Compensation

Education

Insurance

Loan Guaranty

Medical

Pension

VR&E

Other Programs

8

11,370

30

0

0

91

95

6

4

11.0%

24.5%

11.7%

0.0%

0.0%

15.9%

12.9%

9.0%

13.3%

15

17,405

65

2

2

224

188

30

8

20.5%

37.5%

25.3%

16.7%

33.3%

39.1%

25.5%

44.8%

26.7%

49

16,409

156

10

4

229

426

31

17

67.1%

35.4%

60.7%

83.3%

66.7%

40.0%

57.9%

46.3%

56.7%

1

1,183

6

0

0

29

27

0

1

1.4%

2.6%

2.3%

0.0%

0.0%

5.1%

3.7%

0.0%

3.3%

73

46,367

257

12

6

573

736

67

30

0.1%

95.0%

0.5%

0.0%

0.0%

1.2%

1.5%

0.1%

0.1%

BVA Original

Jurisdiction 5 5.4% 3 3.3% 66 71.7% 18 19.6% 92 0.2%

Multiple 

Program Areas 118 20.0% 260 44.0% 204 34.5% 9 1.5% 591 1.2%

GRAND TOTAL 11,727 24.0% 18,202 37.3% 17,601 36.1% 1,274 2.6% 48,804 100.0%

20

NODs in Field Forms 9s in Field Remands in Field & AMC Appeals at BVA

NODs in Field 90268 90934 96310 98730 97035 99393 100777 101267 103446 109091 114124 113388 115326 116311 118135 114953 121139 116702

Forms 9s in Field 64394 64975 65426 65908 66252 66546 67114 67255 67473 67971 68428 68819 69534 69440 69914 70773 71468 72664

Remands in Field & AMC 26455 26591 26651 27007 27090 27292 27924 28431 28609 28596 28579 28535 27562 27486 27191 27164 26926 27251

Appeals at BVA 30923 30416 30178 29162 28685 28282 27663 27178 26903 26899 26519 26529 27389 27722 28344 28818 29327 29261

Apr-08 May08 Jun-08 Jul-08 Aug08 Sep-08 Oct-08 Nov-08 Dec-08 Jan-09 Feb-09 Mar-09 Apr-09 May09 Jun-09 Jul-09 Aug09 Sep-09

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

70,000

80,000

90,000

100,000

110,000

120,000

130,000
BVA Dispositions by Representation

FY 2009

REPRESENTATION ALLOWED REMANDED DENIED OTHER TOTAL

No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent No. Percent

American Legion 2,100 23.5% 3,469 38.8% 3,069 34.3% 297 3.3% 8,935 18.3%

AMVETS 65 25.6% 91 35.8% 94 37.0% 4 1.6% 254 0.5%

Disabled American 

Veterans 3,853 25.5% 5,607 37.1% 5,243 34.7% 407 2.7% 15,110 31.0%

Military Order of the 

Purple Heart 179 31.7% 191 33.8% 186 32.9% 9 1.6% 565 1.2%

Paralyzed Veterans of 

America 118 28.7% 156 38.0% 101 24.6% 36 8.8% 411 0.8%

Veterans of Foreign 

Wars 1,138 24.2% 1,746 37.2% 1,706 36.3% 108 2.3% 4,698 9.6%

Vietnam Veterans of 

America 235 23.8% 454 46.0% 261 26.4% 37 3.7% 987 2.0%

State Service 

Organizations 1,975 24.1% 2,802 34.2% 3,246 39.6% 164 2.0% 8,187 16.8%

Attorney 853 22.7% 1,743 46.4% 1,083 28.8% 80 2.1% 3,759 7.7%

Agents 21 23.1% 32 35.2% 36 39.6% 2 2.2% 91 0.2%

Other Representation 304 28.1% 357 33.1% 395 36.6% 24 2.2% 1,080 2.2%

No Representation 886 18.7% 1,554 32.9% 2,181 46.1% 106 2.2% 4,727 9.7%

GRAND TOTAL 11,727 24.0% 18,202 37.3% 17,601 36.1% 1,274 2.6% 48,804 100.0%

BVA DECISIONS

Fiscal Year Decisions Allowed Remanded Denied Other

2006 39,076 19.3% 32.0% 46.3% 2.4%

2007 40,401 21.1% 35.4% 40.9% 2.6%

2008 43,757 21.9% 36.8% 38.9% 2.5%

2009 48,804 24.0% 37.3% 36.1% 2.6%

21
BVA Decisions FY 06 - FY 09

FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 Estimate

39,076 40,401

43,757

48,804

45,500

0

10,000

20,000

30,000

40,000

50,000

60,000

BVA Operating Statistics

FY06 FY07 FY08 FY09

Decisions 39,076 40,401 43,757 48,804

Case Receipts*

 Added to Docket 46,076 44,337 43,351 51,481

 Received at BVA 41,802 39,817 40,916 49,783

Cases Pending** 40,265 39,031 36,452 40,688

Hearings - VACO 554 421 672 470

 Video 2,719 2,870 2,891 3,375

 Field 5,885 6,680 7,089 7,784

 TOTAL 9,158 9,971 10,652 11,629

Decisions per FTE 86.4 90.3 93.2 93.0

BVA FTE 452 447 469 525

BVA Cycle Time 148 136 155 100

Cost per Case $1,381 $1,337 $1,365 $1,407

* Case Receipts composed of: (1) new cases added to BVA’s docket; and (2) cases received at BVA, 

which consist of all cases physically received at the Board, including original appeals and cases 

returned to the Board’s docket (i.e., cases returned following remand development, cases remanded 

by the Court, and cases received for reconsideration or vacate actions).

** Pending figures include certified appeals pending in the field awaiting BVA hearings, as well as 

cases pending before the Board.

22
Department of Veterans Affairs

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Report of the Chairman

Fiscal Year 2009