DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Washington DC 20420

February 23, 2009 

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 2008 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 2008 and the projected activities of the Board for Fiscal Years 2009 

and 2010, as required by 38 U.S.C. § 7101(d), are provided in Parts I and II.

Fiscal Year 2008 saw the Board increase productivity to the highest level since 1991 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 2008.

Very respectfully,

James P. Terry

Chairman

Enclosure

Table of Contents

Page 1 Introduction

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

Page 3 Successes

Page 4 Succession Planning

Page 5 The Board’s Goals for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010

Page 5 1. Eliminate Avoidable Remands 

Page 7 2. Eliminate the Backlog 

Page 8 3. Expedited Claims Adjudication Initiative 

Page 9 4. Docketing Changes 

Page 10 5. Paperless Appeals

Page 10 Fiscal Year 2008 Briefings 

Page 10 Significant Judicial Precedent and Its Effect on the Board 

Page 13 Assistance to VBA Regional Offices and VHA

Page 14 Veterans Service Organization (VSO) Forums and Global Training 

Page 14 Veterans Law Review

Page 14 Volunteer Activities 

Page 14 Planning for the Future 

Page 16 BOARD MEMBERS 

Page 17 PART II: STATISTICAL DATA 

Page 20 PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 2009 AND 2010 

Page 21 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION 

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 2008 and projected activities for Fiscal 

Years 2009 and 2010. Part II provides statistical information related to BVA activities during Fiscal 

Year 2008 and projected activities for Fiscal Years 2009 and 2010.

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, as set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7101(a), is “to conduct hearings and consider and 

dispose of appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner.” The Board’s goal is to issue quality 

decisions in compliance with the requirements of the law, including the precedential decisions of the 

United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) and other federal courts.

Department of Veterans Affairs

Fiscal Year 2008 

Veterans Law Judges

1

PART I

ACTIVITIES OF THE BOARD 

OF VETERANS’ APPEALS

FISCAL YEAR 2008

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, 296 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 71 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 (94.4%) 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 2008, the Board issued 43,757 decisions and conducted 10,652 hearings with a cycle 

time of 155 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 Board physically received 40,916 appeals in Fiscal Year 2008 

and expects to receive at least that many appeals in Fiscal Year 2009. 

During the past fiscal year, the Board hired 75 attorneys and law clerks to fill vacant staff counsel 

positions and to replace departing staff counsel. In addition, seven new VLJs and seven Senior 

Counsel were selected through competitive processes. Senior Counsel serve as Acting Veterans Law 

Judges, draft decisions, mentor and train other attorneys, and assist in management. 

Successes 

The Board issued 43,757 decisions in Fiscal Year 2008, an increase of 3,356 over the 40,401 decisions 

issued in Fiscal Year 2007. The Board’s productivity in Fiscal Year 2008 represents the greatest 

number of decisions issued by the BVA in any year since 1991, which was shortly after the beginning 

of judicial review of Board decisions. 

VLJs conducted 10,652 hearings, which is an increase of 681 hearings over Fiscal Year 2007 and the 

most hearings ever held by the Board in a year. All of the line VLJs exceeded their productivity goals 

3
and most traveled to at least three ROs to conduct one week of Travel Board hearings at each site. The 

number of cases pending before the Board at the end of Fiscal Year 2008 was 36,452, which is a 2,579 

case decrease from the 39,031 appeals that were pending at the end of Fiscal Year 2007. This decrease 

occurred because of the extraordinary efforts of the VLJs, staff counsel, and administrative support staff. 

In addition to dispatching the 43,757 decisions issued by the Board in Fiscal Year 2008, the 

Board’s administrative support staff reviewed 38,726 pieces of mail, determined the nature of the 

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

82,000 inquiries from Veterans or their representatives.

In Fiscal Year 2008, 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 2008. The 94.8% accuracy rate for the fiscal 

year was slightly higher than the 93.8% accuracy rate for Fiscal Year 2007. The accuracy rate 

quantifies those substantive deficiencies that would be expected to result in a reversal or a remand by 

the 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 Principal Deputy Vice Chairman and Director of 

Management, Planning, and Analysis. The two SL positions are Chief Counsel for Operations and 

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.

In Fiscal Year 2008, seven new VLJs were appointed to the Board, and seven new Senior Counsel 

were selected through competitive selection processes. The newly appointed VLJs had an average of 

eleven years of veterans’ law experience prior to their appointment as VLJs.

The Board’s business plan contemplates that Senior Counsel positions 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. 

4
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 2008, the Board hired 75 new 

attorneys and law clerks, as well as 15 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 

2008, the Board hired 12 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 2009 and 2010

The two most significant challenges for Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010 are to continue to eliminate 

avoidable remands and to reduce the backlog of pending appeals. 

1. Eliminate Avoidable Remands

Veterans deserve timely and correct decisions on claims for benefits. The record must contain all 

evidence necessary to decide the claim and show that all necessary due process has been provided. 

If the record does not meet these requirements, and the benefits sought cannot be granted, a remand 

for further development is necessary. However, remands from the Board to the Agency of Original 

Jurisdiction (AOJ) significantly increase the time it takes for a Veteran to receive a final decision. A 

remand typically adds more than a year to the appellate process. Furthermore, about 75% of cases 

remanded are subsequently returned to the Board, which increases both the AOJ’s and the Board’s 

workload and further degrades timeliness. Eliminating avoidable remands is a goal that will provide 

better service to Veterans and their families and, ultimately, help diminish the growing backlog. The 

Board has made significant progress toward this goal. BVA’s remand rate was 36.8% in Fiscal Year 

2008, which is down from a high of 56.8% in Fiscal Year 2004. 

In Fiscal Year 2009 and 2010, the Board will focus on the following: 

 Data Collection: The Board and the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) will continue to 

collect data that tracks the reasons for remand so that training can be planned and corrective 

action taken. A joint project between the Board and VBA led to a revised and simplified 

reasons for remand checklist, so that VBA can more accurately track data with respect to the 

leading reasons for remands, and training can be tailored accordingly.

 Training: The Board and VBA will continue to conduct training to address the most common 

reasons for remand, which are the need for a medical examination or opinion, the need 

to obtain medical records, or the need to correct a notice error under the Veterans Claims 

Assistance Act (VCAA).

5
 Concise Explanations of the Reasons for Remanding a Case: The Board will continue to 

provide a concise explanation of the reasons for remand in individual decisions in order to 

reduce ambiguity and to improve field processing. Better understanding of and compliance 

with remand directives decreases the risk of a second remand in a particular case and may help 

avoid future remands because of the same deficiency. 

 Prejudicial Error Analyses: One reason for the high remand rate of 56.8% in Fiscal Year 

2004 was the VCAA which, among other things, heightened VA’s duty to assist and duty to 

notify claimants of the type of evidence needed to substantiate their claims. Following the 

issuance of Pelegrini v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 112 (2004), in which the CAVC held that a 

VCAA notice letter must be provided to a claimant prior to an initial adverse adjudication, the 

Board attempted to avoid remands, when possible, by conducting an analysis to determine if 

any notice deficiency provided to the claimant was prejudicial. If prejudice was not found, 

most Board judges issued final decisions. If the deficiency was prejudicial, judges remanded 

the case to the RO to cure the defect. In Sanders v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 881 (Fed. Cir. 2007), 

and Simmons v. Nicholson, 487 F.3d 892 (Fed. Cir. 2007), cert. granted, 76 U.S.L.W. 3529 

(U.S. June 16, 2008) (No. 07-1209), the Federal Circuit held that failure to provide adequate 

notice under the VCAA is presumed prejudicial to the Veteran, but that presumption can be 

overcome based on the specific facts of a particular case. In light of these decisions, the Board 

will continue the practice of conducting a prejudicial error analysis whenever a VCAA duty to 

notify defect is found in order to issue final decisions in cases where a lack of prejudice to the 

Veteran can be found. 

 Waivers of AOJ Review: The remand rate has trended downward since 2004, due, in part, to 

the restoration of a regulatory amendment that allows the Board to request a waiver of initial 

AOJ review of new evidence. Before February 22, 2002, if the Board accepted any evidence 

not previously considered by the AOJ, it was required to remand the case for review and 

preparation of a Supplemental Statement of the Case, unless the appellant or representative 

waived, in writing, initial AOJ consideration of the evidence, or the VLJ could fully grant 

the benefit(s) sought on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c) (2001). Effective February 22, 

2002, the Board’s Appeals Regulations and Rules of Practice were amended to allow the 

BVA to consider additional evidence without referring the evidence to the AOJ for initial 

consideration and without obtaining the appellant’s waiver. However, in Disabled American 

Veterans v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs, 327 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2003), the Federal Circuit 

invalidated that portion of the Board’s regulations that allowed BVA to consider additional 

evidence without remanding the case to the AOJ for initial consideration and without obtaining 

the appellant’s waiver. Following this decision, the Board amended its regulations to add a 

substantially similar version of the prior 38 C.F.R. § 20.1304(c). See 69 Fed. Reg. 53,807 

(Sep. 3, 2004). 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.

As a result of the above efforts, the Board’s remand rate decreased from 56.8% in Fiscal Year 2004, to 

36.8% for Fiscal Year 2008.

6
2. 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 2008, that number had decreased to 27,292. 

Additional efforts to eliminate avoidable remands should reduce the number of Board remands 

in the field even further.

 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. 

 Training: The Board’s full-time training coordinator organizes training evolutions for the 

Board’s attorneys and judges. Training for new attorneys in Fiscal Year 2008 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 Rating the Spine, Evaluation of Lay Evidence, Obtaining 

Medical Opinions, Reasons for Remand, Evaluating Medical Nexus Evidence, Adjudicating 

Psychiatric Disorders, Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, Rating Disorders of the Ear, and Adjudicating 

Claims for an Earlier Effective Date. 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 2008. 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 

7
attorneys to prepare draft decisions and other work products at their primary residence. 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.

 Increasing use of paralegals: The Board established a paralegal unit for non-decisional 

support activities to free up the legal staff to decide appeals. In the second quarter of Fiscal 

Year 2006, the Board transferred the primary responsibility for drafting certified lists of the 

relevant evidence considered by the Board in a decision on appeal to the CAVC from the 

Board’s staff counsels to the paralegal unit. In Fiscal Year 2008, BVA provided 1,834 certified 

lists to VA’s OGC. Effective May 1, 2008, the CAVC amended its rules and required a joint 

appendix rather than certified lists. The Board’s paralegals who had been producing these 

certified lists will be transferred to other responsibilities which will enhance the Board’s 

abilities to efficiently handle appeals and administrative tasks. 

 Draft Decisions: VLJs will draft decisions, in addition to reviewing decisions drafted by staff 

counsel, as time permits.

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. 

3. Expedited Claims Adjudication Initiative

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

Claims Adjudication (ECA) initiative that will be launched as a two-year pilot program at four 

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

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 will voluntarily waive specified 

procedural rights and, in return, be 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 will be offered in writing by VA as an option when a claim is 

received. During the pilot program, participation will extend to claims for benefits administered by 

VBA at four locations (Philadelphia, Nashville, Lincoln, and Seattle) for Veterans who are represented. 

Participation will be open to claims for disability compensation benefits under 38 C.F.R. Parts 3 and 4, 

8
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.

The final regulations to implement the ECA were published in the Federal Register on November 5, 

2008 and are effective on December 8, 2008. The Department is very excited about this program and 

the positive impact expected in speeding up the adjudication of claims and appeals before VA.

4. Docketing Changes

Effective October 1, 2008, the Board places an appeal on its docket when it is received at the Board. 

This change will allow Veterans and their representatives to receive more accurate information 

regarding the location and status of their appeal. The Board expects the new docketing procedure 

to identify delays in appeals processing more accurately by more clearly identifying the location of 

the appeal. This procedure is in keeping with the Secretary’s policy of placing a renewed emphasis 

throughout the Department on expediting the claims adjudication and appeals process in its entirety.

In January 1994, the Board began to docket appeals when the VA Form 9 had been filed by the Veteran 

at the RO indicating his or her formal reasons for appeal to the Board. This action was taken to allow 

appeals to remain at the RO at a time when the Board had a three year backlog of cases physically 

located at its offices. Prior to that time, the Board docketed cases on the date they arrived at the Board 

and were subject to the Board’s jurisdiction. A return to a modified form of this former process is 

appropriate. Recent data collection indicates that cases in which a formal appeal document (VA Form 

9) has been filed by the Veteran are not being timely forwarded to the Board for a variety of reasons. 

During this extended interval, these cases are not subject to the Board’s appellate jurisdiction. Rather, 

these cases remain at the RO, often undergoing further development, and do not physically arrive at 

the Board for consideration until a long period of time has passed.

Although the Board will not place a case on the docket under this new process until it is received at 

the Board, the Veteran will not be prejudiced in the consideration of his or her case by processing 

delays at an RO. When the RO enters information into the VACOLS system regarding the filing of 

the VA Form 9, a priority date will be automatically assigned in the system to preserve the Veteran’s 

place in line. Thereafter, when the case is received and docketed by the Board, the docket number that 

is assigned will correspond to this priority date. This process recognizes the need to ensure fairness 

to every Veteran in the processing of his or her claim at all levels of consideration, while at the same 

time clarifying that cases are not docketed and ready for Board consideration until they are actually 

received by the Board.

9
5. Paperless Appeals

In Fiscal Year 2008, the Board completed its first paperless appeal. For some time now, VA has been 

processing Benefit Delivery at Discharge (BDD) claims for separating service members by using 

a paperless claims processing system at ROs in Salt Lake City, Utah and Winston-Salem, North 

Carolina. The first appeal of one of these claims reached the Board in 2008 and allowed the Board to 

begin planning how to handle the expected growing caseload of paperless appeals. The Board found 

several areas of improvement while working on the first appeal 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.

Fiscal Year 2008 Briefings

During the fiscal year, the Chairman or his representatives discussed the Board’s successes, challenges, 

and general activities at the Service Officers School of the Georgia Department of Veterans Services, 

VA’s National Creative Arts Festival, the New Jersey Association of Veterans Service Officers Annual 

Training, the American Legion’s 85th Annual Veterans Affairs and Rehabilitation Conference, the 

CAVC’s Tenth Judicial Conference, the Federal Circuit Judicial Conference, the National Association 

of County Veterans Service Officers Convention, the Disabled American Veterans 87th National 

Convention and Legislative Seminar, the Ohio Association of County Veterans Service Officers 

Conference, and the Georgia Department of Veterans Service Conference.

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

Committee on the “State of the Board”.

Significant Judicial Precedent and Its Effect on the Board 

 Hart v. Mansfield, 21 Vet. App. 505 (2007):

In Hart v. Mansfield, the CAVC held that staged ratings are appropriate for an increased 

rating claim when the factual findings show distinct time periods where the service-connected 

disability exhibits symptoms that would warrant different ratings (similar to initial disability 

claims, See Fenderson v. West, 12 Vet. App. 119 (1999)). In reaching this conclusion, 

the CAVC observed that when a claim for an increased rating is granted, the effective 

date assigned may be up to one year prior to the date that the application for increase was 

received if it is factually ascertainable that an increase in disability had occurred within that 

timeframe. 38 U.S.C. § 5110. Accordingly, the relevant focus for adjudicating an increased 

rating claim is on the evidence concerning the state of the disability from the time period 

one year before the claim was filed until VA makes a final decision on the claim. If VA’s 

adjudication of an increased rating claim is lengthy, a claimant may experience multiple 

distinct degrees of disability that would result in different levels of compensation from the time 

the increased rating claim was filed until the final decision on that claim is made. Thus, VA’s 

determination of the “present level” of a disability may result in a conclusion that the disability 

10
has undergone varying and distinct levels of severity throughout the entire time period the 

increased rating claim has been pending. 

 Boggs v. Peake, 520 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2008): 

This appeal involved a claim of entitlement to service connection for hearing loss of the left 

ear. The disability was initially characterized as conductive hearing loss and was denied in 

1955. Many years later, the claimant again filed for service connection for left ear hearing 

loss which was described as sensorineural hearing loss. The Board treated the new claim as 

an attempt to reopen a finally denied claim and denied reopening because no new and material 

evidence had been submitted. The CAVC affirmed in a nonprecedential decision. The issue 

on appeal to the Federal Circuit concerned the correct legal standard for deciding whether two 

claims for service connection are one and the same, i.e., have the “same factual basis,” for 

purposes of 38 U.S.C. § 7104(b). As a general rule, section 7104(b) provides that “when a 

claim is disallowed by the Board, the claim may not thereafter be reopened and allowed and a 

claim based upon the same factual basis may not be considered.”

The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded, holding that claims that are based upon distinctly 

and properly diagnosed disease or injuries must be considered separate and distinct claims. A 

claim for one diagnosed disease or injury cannot be prejudiced by a prior claim for a different 

diagnosed disease or injury. Rather, the two claims must be considered independently because 

they rest on distinct factual bases. In this case, the Federal Circuit found that the CAVC erred 

as a matter of law in finding that claims based on distinctly diagnosed diseases or injuries 

can be considered the same for purposes of section 7104(b) merely because those diseases or 

injuries involve the same or overlapping symptomatology.

 Haas v. Peake, 525 F.3d 1168 (Fed. Cir. 2008):

The Federal Circuit reversed and remanded the decision of the CAVC in Haas v. Nicholson, 

20 Vet. App. 257 (2006). In that decision the CAVC reversed and remanded a Board decision 

that denied the appellant’s claim for service connection for diabetes mellitus, with peripheral 

neuropathy and retinopathy, as a result of exposure to herbicides. For purposes of applying 

the presumption of exposure to herbicides set forth under 38 C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii), the 

CAVC held that “service in the Republic of Vietnam” will, in the absence of contradictory 

evidence, be presumed based upon the Veteran’s receipt of a Vietnam Service Medal (VSM), 

without any additional proof required that a Veteran who served in waters offshore actually 

set foot on land in the Republic of Vietnam. In reversing, the Federal Circuit held that VA’s 

requirement that a claimant must have been present within the land borders of Vietnam at some 

point in the course of duty in order to be entitled to the presumption of herbicide exposure and 

service connection constitutes a permissible interpretation of 38 U.S.C. § 1116(a)(1) and 38 

C.F.R. § 3.307(a)(6)(iii). Following a detailed and lengthy review of the complex history of 

the legislative and regulatory measures directed to the issue of herbicide exposure in Vietnam, 

the Federal Circuit agreed with the CAVC that the phrase “served in the Republic of Vietnam” 

contained in section 1116 is ambiguous as applied to service in the waters adjoining the 

landmass of Vietnam. Further, the language of section 3.307(a)(6)(iii) is similarly ambiguous 

in that “duty or visitation” in the Republic of Vietnam could be understood to refer to “duty” 

or “visitation” within the broader area encompassed , for example, by the territorial waters 

11
of the Republic. Turning to VA’s interpretation of its own regulations, the Federal Circuit 

held that VA’s interpretation requiring physical presence within Vietnam in order to be entitled 

to the presumption of herbicide exposure was not plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the 

language of section 3.307(a)(6)(iii). The agency’s current interpretation has been consistent for 

more than a decade, and was in effect before the appellant filed his claim for benefits. While 

the regulation itself is subject to competing interpretations, it is not unusual for an interpretive 

regulation to be itself ambiguous. Further, although the 1991 version of the VA Adjudication 

Procedure Manual M21-1 (“In the absence of contradictory evidence, ‘service in Vietnam’ 

will be conceded if the records show that the Veteran received the Vietnam Service Medal.”), 

provides evidence of a different earlier interpretation, such a prior inconsistent interpretation does 

not deprive VA’s current and longstanding interpretation – as reflected by statements included 

in General Counsel precedent opinions and regulatory comments dating back to 1997 – of the 

right to judicial deference. Further, as an interpretive rule the pre-2002 version of the Manual 

was not a substantive rule that could be amended only by notice and comment rulemaking, and 

hence it was erroneous for the CAVC to so hold. The claimant filed a certiorari petition with the 

Supreme Court, which was denied on January 21, 2009.

 Vazquez-Flores v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 37 (2008):

This case was an appeal for an increased rating for nephrolithiasis (kidney stones). The CAVC held 

that the VCAA notice was inadequate. The CAVC found that, at a minimum a 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) 

notice requires that the Secretary notify the claimant that, to substantiate such a claim;

(1) the claimant must provide, or ask the Secretary to obtain, medical or lay evidence 

demonstrating a worsening or increase in the severity of the disability and the 

effect that the worsening has on the claimant’s employment and daily life;

(2) if the Diagnostic Code (DC) under which the claimant’s disability is rated 

contains criteria necessary for entitlement to a higher disability rating that would 

not be satisfied by the claimant demonstrating a noticeable worsening or increase 

in severity of the disability and the effect that worsening has on the claimant’s 

employment and daily life (such as a specific measurement or test result), the 

Secretary must provide at least general notice of that requirement to the claimant;

(3) the claimant must be notified that, should an increase in disability be found, a 

disability rating will be determined by applying relevant DCs, which typically 

provide for a range in severity of a particular disability from 0% to as much 

as 100% (depending on the disability involved), based on the nature of the 

symptoms of the condition for which disability compensation is being sought, 

their severity and duration, and their impact on employment and daily life; and

(4) the notice must also provide examples of the type of medical and lay evidence 

that the claimant may submit (or ask the Secretary to obtain) that are relevant to 

establishing entitlement to increased compensation; e.g., competent lay statements 

describing symptoms, medical and hospitalization records, medical statements, 

employer statements, job application rejections, and any other evidence showing 

an increase in the disability or exceptional circumstances relating to the disability.

12
This important decision significantly increased the responsibility to provide notice to all 

claimants seeking an increased rating and imposed substantial new requirements on VA to 

ensure adequate notice. The Board worked with VBA to develop procedures that would 

provide the necessary notice with the least possible disruption to the processing of current 

claims and appeals.

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

892 (Fed. Cir. (2007), cert. granted, 76 U.S.L.W. 3529(U.S. June 15, 2008) (No. 07-1209):

Both of these decisions addressed the issue of application of the prejudicial error rule in the 

context of the VCAA, including who has the burden of proving before the CAVC that any error 

committed by VA in providing notice of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate 

a claim for benefits under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) was prejudicial. 

In Sanders, the Federal Circuit held that any error by VA in providing the notice required by 38 

U.S.C. § 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(1) is presumed prejudicial; and that once an error is 

identified by the CAVC as to any of the notice elements, the burden shifts to VA to demonstrate 

that the error was not prejudicial to the appellant. The Federal Circuit stated that requiring 

an appellant to demonstrate prejudice as a result of any notice error is inconsistent with the 

purposes of both the VCAA and VA’s uniquely pro-claimant benefits system.

Instead, the Federal Circuit held in Sanders that all VCAA notice errors are presumed prejudicial 

and require reversal unless the VA can show that the error did not affect the essential fairness of 

the adjudication. To do this, the VA must show that the purpose of the notice was not frustrated, 

such as by demonstrating that any defect was cured by actual knowledge on the part of the 

claimant, or that a reasonable person could be expected to understand from the notice what was 

needed, or that a benefit could not have been awarded as a matter of law.

In Simmons, the Federal Circuit, applying the holdings in the concurrently issued decision 

in Sanders, affirmed the CAVC’s holding that an error by VA in providing notice of the 

information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a) is 

presumptively prejudicial, and that in such a case the burden shifts to VA to demonstrate that 

the error was not prejudicial to the appellant. The United States filed a petition for a writ of 

certiorari with the Supreme Court, which was granted by the Court on June 16, 2008. Oral 

argument was held December 8, 2008 and a decision is expected before the end of the Court’s 

term in June.

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. An average of more than 40 hearings per judge 

is 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 2008, 146 attorneys provided assistance to 54 ROs. The attorneys conducted training 

for adjudication personnel at 52 of the ROs visited. 

13
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 2008, the Board established the Veterans Law Review. This new journal will 

provide a scholarly look at veterans benefits law and other issues facing the Board and VA. The 

Veterans Law Review will provide the opportunity for attorneys at the Board, the Office of General 

Counsel, and 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 will also review books addressing 

Veterans benefits and will include case notes as well. Articles will be authored by both VA and nonVA employees. The first annual issue will be published in early 2009.

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, 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. 

Board employees have participated in donating material to Fisher House at Bethesda National Naval 

Medical Center. The Board provided volunteers to assist at the Winterhaven Homeless Veterans Stand 

Down in January, and the Welcome Home Celebration at the Washington VA Medical Center in June. 

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 

14
their leadership skills through training, mentoring, and networking. Events during Fiscal 

Year 2008 included programs where Appellate Group attorneys shared their insights and 

experiences with regard to career development; networking breakfasts; and participation in 

Operation Homefront providing support and building morale for service members and their 

families. This year LI volunteers collected decorations, candy, and costumes to help create a 

fun Halloween party for service members’ children. LI volunteers also assisted at the airport 

and various memorials with the Honor Flight program that provides trips to Washington for our 

nation’s World War II heroes and other Veterans.

 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 the 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 eight 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 has been advised that a building move will not occur during Fiscal 

Year 2009 or 2010. The Board continues to work with GSA and VA Facilities Management to 

upgrade the current location at the Lafayette Building at 811 Vermont Ave, NW, as well as to 

seek to obtain additional office space within the building. 

15
BOARD MEMBERS

James P. Terry, Chairman

Ron H. Garvin, Vice Chairman

Steven L. Keller, 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

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

16
PART II

STATISTICAL DATA

Fiscal Year (FY) 2008 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 2008: 40,916

Number of cases added to docket by filing appeal during FY 2008: 43,351

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(B)

Cases pending before the Board at the start of FY 2008: 39,031*

Cases pending before the Board at the end of FY 2008: 36,452*

*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 2008.

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

Month FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08 FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

2,664

2,171

3,264

3,202

3,562

4,124

3,055

3,104

4,730

4,655

3,890

3,395

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

3,566

3,708

3,695

3,543

3,786

4,552

3,461

4,331

4,334

3,445

4,378

4,337

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

FY Total 41,816 41,802 39,817 40,916 47,136 46,076 44,337 43,351

17
Cases Received at BVA FY 05 - FY 08

41,500 40,916 39,817 41,816 41,802

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Estimate

New Appeals (VA Form 9) Filed FY 05 - FY 08

48,000

43,351 44,337 46,076 47,136

0

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

50,000

FY 05 FY 06 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 Estimate

18
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 218 days

Statement of the Case Issuance 

to Substantive Appeal Receipt Appellant 43 days

Substantive Appeal Receipt to 

Certification of Appeal to BVA Field Station 563 days

Receipt of Certified Appeal to 

Issuance of BVA Decision BVA 255 days

Average Remand Time Factor Field Station 136 days

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(E)

The number of members of the Board at the end of FY 2008: 60 members

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

end of FY 2008: 451 employees not including 60 members above

38 U.S.C. § 7101(d)(2)(F)

Number of acting members of the Board during FY 2008: 78

Number of cases in which such members participated: 8,806

38 U.S.C. § 7101(c)(2)

Number of acting members of the Board in terms of full-time employee equivalents: 11.7

19
PROJECTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS 

2009 AND 2010

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 2008 decisions (43,757) (divided by) = 167.01 Decisions per Work Day

262 work days 

Cases Pending end of FY 2008 (36,452) = 77,952 = Total Workload in FY 2009 

+ New Cases expected in FY 2009 (41,500)

 

Total Workload (77,952) (divided by) = 467 Work Days

Decisions per Work Day (167.01)

Work Days (467) (divided by) = 1.8 Years 

262 work days 

Work years (1.8) x 12 (months) = 21.6 months

Fiscal Year 2009: Cases received at BVA:

Cases added to BVA Docket

41,500

48,000

Fiscal Year 2010: Cases received at BVA:

Cases added to BVA Docket: 

41,500

48,000

20
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Potential BVA Workload in VBA (information)

Number of New Notices of Disagreement Received in the Field

Month FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

October

November

December

January

February

March

April

May

June

July

August

September

8,949

8,293

8,016

9,048

9,053

10,265

9,208

9,390

9,256

8,428

9,307

7,468

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

FY Total 106,681 101,240 102,752 114,451

Notices of Disagreement Received FY 05 - FY08

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

106,681

FY 05 

101,240

FY 06 FY 07 

102,752

FY 08 

114,451

FY 09 Estimate

100,000

21
Potential BVA Workload in VBA

0

20,000

40,000

60,000

80,000

100,000

120,000

140,000

160,000

180,000

200,000

Oct. 06 Nov. 06 Dec. 06 Jan. 07 Feb. 07 Mar. 07 Apr.07 May 07 Jun .07 Jul. 07 Aug.07 Sep. 07 Oct. 07 Nov.07 Dec.07 Jan.08 Feb.08 Mar.08 Apr.08 May.08 Jun.08 Jul.08 Aug.08 Sep.08

NODs Form 9s Remands

BVA Dispositions by VA Program

FY 2008

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&C

Other Programs

6

9,243

28

1

2

96

83

4

9

7.7%

22.4%

10.2%

4.5%

25.0%

18.1%

12.1%

5.7%

17.0%

14

15,354

78

6

3

173

174

25

5

17.9%

37.2%

28.5%

27.3%

37.5%

32.6%

25.3%

35.7%

9.4%

56

15,760

156

14

3

231

405

36

34

71.8%

38.1%

56.9%

63.6%

37.5%

43.6%

58.9%

51.4%

64.2%

2

967

12

1

0

30

26

5

5

2.6%

2.3%

4.4%

4.5%

0.0%

5.7%

3.8%

7.1%

9.4%

78

41,324

274

22

8

530

688

70

53

0.2%

94.4%

0.6%

0.1%

0.0%

1.2%

1.6%

0.2%

0.1%

BVA Original

Jurisdiction 8 8.3% 5 5.2% 56 58.3% 27 28.1% 96 0.2%

Multiple 

Program Areas 91 14.8% 259 42.2% 254 41.4% 10 1.6% 614 1.4%

GRAND TOTAL 9,571 21.9% 16,096 36.8% 17,005 38.9% 1,085 2.5% 43,757 100.0%

22
BVA Dispositions by Representation

FY 2008

REPRESENTATION ALLOWED REMANDED DENIED OTHER TOTAL

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

American Legion 1,802 23.0% 2,872 36.7% 2,939 37.6% 206 2.6% 7,819 17.9%

AMVETS 56 24.2% 87 37.7% 86 37.2% 2 0.9% 231 0.5%

Disabled American 

Veterans 2,841 23.9% 4,496 37.8% 4,274 35.9% 280 2.4% 11,891 27.2%

Military Order of the 

Purple Heart 141 25.2% 205 36.6% 203 36.3% 11 2.0% 560 1.3%

Paralyzed Veterans of 

America 113 28.9% 151 38.6% 93 23.8% 34 8.7% 391 0.9%

Veterans of Foreign 

Wars 952 22.3% 1,576 36.8% 1,654 38.7% 96 2.2% 4,278 9.8%

Vietnam Veterans of 

America 184 23.7% 316 40.6% 246 31.6% 32 4.1% 778 1.8%

State Service 

Organizations 1,721 21.0% 2,750 33.6% 3,550 43.4% 157 1.9% 8,178 18.7%

Attorney 698 20.1% 1,608 46.4% 1,037 29.9% 124 3.6% 3,467 7.9%

Agents 12 17.4% 31 44.9% 24 34.8% 2 2.9% 69 0.2%

Other Representation 209 22.2% 334 35.5% 373 39.6% 26 2.8% 942 2.2%

No Representation 842 16.3% 1,670 32.4% 2,526 49.0% 115 2.2% 5,153 11.8%

GRAND TOTAL 9,571 21.9% 16,096 36.8% 17,005 38.9% 1,085 2.5% 43,757 100.0%

BVA DECISIONS

Fiscal Year Decisions Allowed Remanded Denied Other

2005 34,175 20.8% 38.6% 38.1% 2.5%

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%

23
BVA Decisions FY 05 - FY 08

39,076

5,000

10,000

15,000

20,000

25,000

30,000

35,000

40,000

45,000

34,175

FY 05 FY 06 

40,401

FY 07 

43,757

FY 08 

41,000

FY 09 Estimate

BVA Operating Statistics

FY05 FY06 FY07 FY08

Decisions 34,175 39,076 40,401 43,757

Case Receipts*

 Added to Docket 47,136 46,076 44,337 43,351

 Received at BVA 41,816 41,802 39,817 40,916

Cases Pending** 37,539 40,265 39,031 36,452

Hearings - VACO 738 554 421 672

 Video 2,618 2,719 2,870 2,891

 Field 5,220 5,885 6,680 7,089

 TOTAL 8,576 9,158 9,971 10,652

Decisions per FTE 79.1 86.4 90.3 93.2

BVA FTE 433 452 447 469

BVA Cycle Time 104 148 136 155

Cost per Case $1,453 $1,381 $1,337 $1,365

* 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.

24