Thi s version includ es the e rrat a issued Ap ril 5, 2007-e
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 04-0449
J ER R Y G. A L L EN , A PP EL L ANT ,

AND
N O
. 04-1304
ANDREW J. K EY III , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
. On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided Ma

rch 16, 2007 )
Ke nn e th M

. Ca rp e nte r, of

Was hin g ton , D .C. , w a s o n th e ple a din g fo r t he a pp e lla nts

. Tim Mc Cla in , Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Ri c ha rd Maye rick, Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Catherine A. Chase and Ralph G. Stiehm , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea ding f or the a ppellee.
Be fore GREENE, Chief Judge , and HAG ELand MOORMAN, J ud ge s. G RE ENE, Chief Judge : Ap p el l an t s J erry G. Al l en an d

An d re w J

. Ke y

I I I , ap p ea l , t h ro u gh

c ouns e l, Janu ary

29 , 2 00 4, a nd Apr il 26, 2 00 4, B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd ) d e c isi on s,
re sp e c tiv e ly , th a t de te rm ine d th at VA re g ion a l of fi c e (R O) de c isi on s h a d p ro pe rl y se ve re d th e ir

awa rds of VAbenef

its. Allen Record ( R.) at 1-7; Key R. at 1-7. I n eac h decision, t he Board f ound that it was clea

r and un m i s t ak ab l e error (CUE) for the RO to have aw arde d VA bene fits for dis a bil iti e s ari sin g fr om du ty in qu e lli nga state pr iso n r iot

a s me mbe rs of

the Ne w M e xico Ar

my Natio na l G ua

rd (N MA NG ). On Ap ri l 12 , 2 00 5, Al le n' s and Ke y ' s a pp e a ls w e re c o n s o l i date d b e c a us e bo th u nd e rl y ingB oa

rd de c isi on s are ba se d u

po n th e same ma te ri a l f

a c ts a nd up on ide nti c a l is su e s,2

and both par

ties are repr esente d by

the same c o u n s el

. Fo r the re asons set for th below, the 2004 Boa rd dec isions will be af

firmed. I. BACKG ROUND Al le n a nd Ke y se rv e d in

the NM AN G f

ro m Ma y 19 78 to M ay

19 85 , a nd Ap ri l 19 79 to Fe bruar y 1980, respe ctively . On Fe bruar y 2, 1980 , an d Fe b ru ar y

3, 1980, the Gover

nor of Ne w Mexi co orde red A llen' s and Ke y ' s Army National Gua

rd units into the active military service of the state to quell a riot at the Santa Fe , New Mex ico, state pe nitentiary . Subsequently , they soug ht VA service -conne cted disability benef its on the basis that their participation in quelling that riot caused them to suf

fer post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). In May 1999, the RO awa rd ed Ke y service

connec tion for PTSD on that basis, and assig ned a 100% disability rating , eff

ective Ma y 11, 1992. He wa s also awa

rded V A depe ndents' educational assistance ( DEA) be nefits. I n Marc h 2000, the RO awa rded A llen service connec tion for PTS D, and assigne d a 30% disability rating , eff

ective f rom Ap ri l 22 , 1 99 7, thr ou g h Jun e 28 , 1 99 9, and a 70 % d isa

bil ity ratin g the re a ft e r. Al le n w a s a lso

awa rded a rating of TDIU. Soon therea fter, the inspector g ener al o f t h e NM ANG a dvised the RO that seve ral Ne w Me xico Gu ard sme n sh ou ld no t have be e n awa rd e d VA se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r pe rf ormi ng stat e Natio na l Gua

rd du ty fo r que lli ng the pe nit e nti ary ri ot, wh ic h wa s sta te du ty . I n Apr il 2 00 1, the RO reque sted from the dire ctor of the VA Compensation and Pension (C& P) Service a n a d v is o r y o p in ion on whether

service by

New Me x ico Guar dsmen in quelling the New Mexi co prison riot qualified as active se rvice for VAbenef its purposes. I n response , the direc tor opined: " Active military service of the State of

Ne w M e xico by

a me mbe r o f t

he Ne w Me xico Natio na l G ua rd to c on tr ol t

he Santa Fe , New Me x ico, prison riot does not meet the definition of active duty in the Armed F orce s of the Uni ted S tat es as sp eci fi ed at 38 C. F.R . § 3

. 6 ( c ) ( 3 ) [ ( 2 0 0 0 )] ." Allen R. at 27 6; KeyR. at 81. The direc tor furthe r advised that action should be taken to se ver the VA benef its a war ded to Allen and Key

. Allen and Ke y

wer e notified of the RO' s intention to sever their ser vice c onnection for

PTSD, and in J anuar

y 2002 decisions, the RO re corde d that an Oc tober 2000 letter from the Ar

my National Guard st a te d th a t " Ne w M e xico Natio na l G ua rd Sol die rs we re a c tiv a te d b y the Go ve rn or

to h e lp quell inmate riots in a New Mexi co prison and that they wer e activate d under Title 32, U.S. [ Code]3

on st ate act iv e du ty ." Allen R

. a t 28 1; KeyR. at 89. Consequently , the RO found that bec ause a deter mination of qualifying se rvice for VAbenef its had not been made at the time t hat benefits were

awa rded, the RO had committed CUE i n awa rding Allen and Ke y

service connec tion and VA benef its. Acc ording ly , their awards of service connec tion were sever ed. Allen a nd Key appea led,

and in Janu ary

and Ap ri l 20 04 de c isi on s, the B oa rd a ff ir me d th e RO ' s d e c isi on s. The Boar d f ir st found that " the RO satisfied all proc edura l require ments specifie d by regulation w here sever ance of

ser vi ce conne cti on is con tem pl ate d. " Allen R. at 6; Key R. at 6. Ne xt, the B oa rd a g re e d w iththe RO and conc luded that CUE had be en committed in the RO dec isions that awar d ed Al l en an d Key entitlement to VA bene fits and stated: Fo l l o wi n g t h e . . . [ R O] d ec i s i o n [ s ] , i n fo rm at i o n wa s re ce i v ed t h a t t h e v et er an [ s '] service during the Fe bruar y 1980 prison riot was for

the state of N ew Me x ico rather than Fe dera l service

. There fore , this is a new mate rial fa ct, which wa s not before the RO at the time of the . .

. [R O] de cision[s ] g ranting service connec tion .

. . , and the RO' s determination at that time constitutes err or that is "unde batable" and of the sort "w hich, had it not been ma de, would h av e m anife stly chang ed the outcome at the time is was made." Allen R. at 7; KeyR. at 7. This appea l followed.

II. P ARTIES' CONTENTIONS Allen and Key argue that (1) the rec ord does not c ontain clea r and unmistakable evidence showing that their g rants of se rvice connec tion were CUE; (2) the Bo ar d failed to provide an
a d e qu a t e s t a t e m e n t o f r e a s o n s o r b a s e s b e c a u s e i t f a i l e d t o c o n s i d e r a

n d a p p l y 3 8 U. S.C. §§ 101(22)( C), (24)( b), 1131; (3) VA relied err oneously on 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c) (3) ( 2000) to support its decision t o sever service connec tion beca use t hat s ection makes no distinction betwee n state and Fe dera l duty

for the pur

poses of veter ans benef

its; and (4) the Boa

rd err ed in a ffirming the seve ranc e of ser vice c onnection bec ause it re lied on the 2001 advisory opinion, which amounts to "a post hoc re-weighing o f th e fa ct s an d d o es n o tco n s t i tu t e c l ea r a n d u n m i s t ak ab l e e v i d en ce t o s u p p o rt

. . . VA 's bu rden to sev er an awardof d is abi li ty com pen sat io n. " Allen B r. a t 8- 15 ; KeyBr . at 7-15. The Sec reta

ry argues for aff

irmance of the B oard de cisions beca use sec tion 101(22)(c ) and § 3 .6 (c )( 3) " sp e c if

ic a lly lim it[] a c tiv e du ty

fo r t ra ini ngto d

uty wh ic h is pe rf

or me d und e r 32 U. S.C. §§ 316, 520, 503, 504 , an d 5 0 5 , wh i ch per tain to training

and cle arly

do not encompass a

n4

eme rgency cal l- up ord er iss ued by a st ate govern or to qu ell a pri so n ri ot ." Allen S e c r e t ar y' s ( S e c ' y) B r. a t 15 ; see Key S ec 'y Br

. at 1 1

. T h e S ec re t ary as s er t s t h at an y p urp o rt ed erro rs i n t h e B o a rd 's

re a so ns or

ba se s are ha

rm le ss b e c a

us e , b y law, the a

pp e lla nts are no t e nti tle d to ve te ra ns be ne fi ts. Allen Se c ' y

B r. a t 16 -1 9; see Key

Sec' y Br . at 15-17.

III. AP P LICABLE LAW A. Elig ibilit y

for VADisability

Compensation When Allen and Ke y

wer e aw arde d service co n n ec t i on for PTSD, the g overninglaw de sc ri bin g ba si c e nti tle me nt t o c omp e ns a tio n f or pe a c e tim e se rv ic e -c on ne c te d d isa bil ity

c omp e ns a tio n p ro vid e d: For disability resulting from per sonal injury suffe red or

disease c ontrac ted in line of duty , or for

ag g ravation of a pre exis ting injury suffe red or

disease c ontrac ted in line of duty , in the active milit ary , naval, or air service , during other than a period of w ar, the Un ite d St a te s w ill pay to any v eteran thus disabled .

. . from the pe riod of ser vice in which said injury

or disease was incur

red, or pree x isting inju ry o r di sease was ag g ravated, compensation as provided in this subchapter

. 38 U. S.C. § 1 13 1 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e als o 38 U.S.C. §§ 1112, 1113(a); 3 8 C

. F. R . §§ 3.303(a) , 3. 30 6 (1 99 9 & 20 00 ). T hu s, in ord er t o rec eiv e VA b enef it s, a c l a i m a n t m us t b e a "vet eran ." A "ve t era n" is de fined, in par

t, as " a per son who serve d in the active military , naval, or air ser vice." 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 ); se e als o 3 8 C

. F

. R

. § 3

. 1 ( d ) ( 1 9 9 9 & 2 0 0 0 )

. " [A ]c t i v e m i l i t ar y , n a v a l , o r

a ir service " is de fined to include active duty , any

period of a ctive duty

for tra ining dur i n g wh i ch the indivi dual conce rned w as disabled or died from a

disease or

injury incurre d or ag g ravated in line of duty , and any p er i o d o f inac tive duty training during which the individual conce rned w as disabled or died from an inj ury incurre d or ag g ravated in the line of d u t y. 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 4) ; se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(a) (1999 & 2000). "A ctive duty " is define d as, i nter alia, "f ull-time duty

in the Armed F orce s, other than a ctive du ty fo r tr a ini ng ." 38 U. S.C. § 1 01 (2 1) ; see 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b)( 1). " Armed F orce s" de scribes " the United States Army , Navy , M ar i ne Corps, Air F orce , and Coast Guar d, including the rese rve
com ponents there of." 38 U.S.C. § 101(10). The r eser ve compone nts include the Army National G u ar d o f t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s
. 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 0 1 ( 2 9 )

. H o w e v e r , t h e A r m y N a t i o n a l G u ar d

i s o n l y a5

rese rve c omponent "w hile in the service of the United States." 10 U.S.C. § 10106. S ection 12401 of title 10, U.S. Code, provides that " members of the Army National Guar d of the United States and the Air National Guard of the Unit ed S tates are not in active F eder al servic e except whe n order ed the re to u nd e r l aw. " 10 U. S.C. § 1 24 01 . T hu s, a me mbe r o f t

he Natio na l G ua

rd ho lds a status a s a member of

the fe dera l mili tary

or the state militia, but never both at o n ce. See P erpich v

. De pa rtm e nt o

f D e fe ns e , 4 96 U. S. 3 34 (1 99 0) (" [Natio na l Gua rd me mbe rs ] now

mus t ke e p thre e hats in the ir closets--a civilian hat, a state milit ia hat, and a n army hat--only one of w hich is worn at a ny particula r time." ). In Perpich , the Supreme Court discussed the dual sche me of the state and fe dera l Natio na l G ua

rd sy ste ms a

nd state d: Since 1933 all per sons who have e nlisted in a state National Gua rd unit have simult aneously

enlisted in the National Gua rd of the U nited States. I n the latter c a pa c ity the y be c a me a part o f t

he En lis te d Re se rv e Cor

ps of the Ar my , b ut u nle ss and until order ed to active duty in the Army , they reta in their status as member s of a se pa rate state Gu ard

un it. Id

. a t 3 4 5

. T h e U

. S. Co u rt o f A p p e a ls f

o r th e F e d e r a l C ir c u it

in te r p r e ted Perpich t o s t and for the propos it io n th a t " me mb e r s o f th e N a ti o n a l G u ar d o n ly s e r v e th e f e d e r a l mi li ta

r y w h e n the y

are formally called into the milit ary service of t he United St ates [and that a]t all other times, National Gu ard me mbe rs se rv e so le ly

a s me mbe rs of

the State mil iti a

un de r the com man d o f a state govern or. " Clark v. United States , 322 F.3d 1358, 1366 ( Fe d. Cir. 2003). Additionally , "[a]ctive duty for tra ining" for " members of the Army

National Gua

rd . . . of any State" is de fined a s "f

ull-time dut y u n d er s ec tion 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32." 38 U.S.C. § 101(22)(C). Section 3.6(c) (3) of title 38, Code of Fe dera l Reg ulations defines " active d u t y fo r t ra i n i n g" i nt h e s am e ma n n er
. 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 3

. 6 (c )( 3 ). S i m i l ar l y , "[ i ] n ac t i v e du t y fo r t ra i n i n g" in refe renc e to " members of the Army

National Gua

rd . . . of a

ny State" is de fined a s "duty (other tha n ful l- ti me duty

) p e rf or me d b y a me mbe r o f t

he Natio na l G ua

rd in a ny State un de r 3 2 U .S. C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505, or the prior corresponding provisions of law." 38 U.S.C. § 101(23);

see 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(d)( 4). Ther efor e, to have basic eligibility for vetera ns benef its based on a per iod of duty as a me mber of a state Ar

my National Gua

rd, a N ational Guar dsman must have bee n order ed into Fede ral ser

vice by the President of the United States, see 10 U.S.C. § 12401, or must have perf orm ed "fu ll -t im e du ty " under the provisions o f 3 2 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505

. See6

38 U. S.C. §§ 10 1( 21 ), (2 2) (C ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see also 32 U.S.C. §§ 316 (providing f or deta iling of re g ular membe rs of the U .S. Army and Air For ce to duty with the Army or Air National Guard of ea ch State); 502(a )(2) (stating t h at "ea ch company , battery , squadron, a nd detac hment of the National Gua

rd . . . shall . . . par

ticipate in training at enc am p m ents , maneuve rs, outdoor targ et pr a c tic e , o r o the r e xer c ise s, a t le a st 1 5 d ay s e a c h ye ar" ); 50 3 ( pr ov idi ngfo r p art ici pat ion in fi e ld exercises); 504 ( dealingwith National Guar d Schools and small arms competitions); 505 (dea ling with U.S. Army

and Air F orce schools and fie ld exercises). B. CUE a

nd Severa nce of Service Connection "Re view to deter

mine whether

clea r and unmistakable err or exists in a case may be instituted by the Se c re tary on th e Se c re tary ' s o wn mot ion or up on re qu e st o f t

he c la ima nt. " 38 U. S.C. § 5109A(c ). " Previous deter minations [ by

VA,] which are final and binding , . . . will be ac cepte d

as cor rec t in the absenc e of [C UE]," and "se rvice connec tion will be sever ed only wher e evide nce establishes that it is clear ly and unmi stakably err oneous," except "w here

. . . the ev idenceestablishes
t h a t s er vice connec tion was clearly illegal ." 38 C.F .R. 3. 10 5 ( 20 06 ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see Venturella v. Gobe r , 10 Vet.App. 340, 342 ( 1997). When it is determined that there is no leg al entitlement for a

previous aw ard of

VA bene fits, VA' s authority to sever se rvice connec tion is not limit ed to ca ses in which ther e is a finding of CUE. Ve ntu re lla , supra. The Sec reta ry has the burde n of demonstrating that a

n awa rd of se rvice connec tion is clearly and unm i s t akably

err oneous, see Grav es v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 166, 170 ( 1994), and his decision to se ver service connec tion is subj ect to direct a ppellate r eview unde r 38 U.S.C. § 501(b). For CUE to exi st, either (1) the cor rec t fac ts in the recor d wer e not bef ore the adjudicator

or (2) the statutory

or re g ulatory

provisions ex tant at the time were incorrec tly applied. See D amrel v. Br own , 6 Vet.App. 242, 245 (1994). I n addition, " the err or must be ' undebata ble' and of t h e s o rt 'wh i ch , h adi tn o tb ee nm ad e, wo u l d h av e m an i fe s t l y

ch an gedt h e o u t co m e a tt h e t i m e i twa s m ad e. '" Id

. (q u o t i n g Russell v. Principi , 3 V e t

. A p p
. 3 1 0 , 3 1 3

- 1 4 ( 1 9 9 2 ) ( e nb an c ) ); see Bu sto s v . W est , 179 F.3d 1378, 1380 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999) (expressly adopting "ma

nifest l y ch ang ed the outcome " lang uag e of Ru sse ll , su

pra ). " I n o rd e r f

or the re to b e a va lid c la im of [CUE ], . . . [t]h e c la ima nt, in sh ort , mu st ass ert mo re th an a di sagreem ent as to ho w th e fact s w ere wei ghed o r eva lu ate d. " Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 313. Th at i s beca use, " even w here the pre mise of er ror is ac cepte d, if it is not7

a bs olute ly c le ar t hat a dif fe re nt re su lt wou ld have e ns ue d, the e rr or c omp la ine d of ca nn ot b e , ip so fact o, cle ar an d u nm is tak abl e." Fu go v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 40, 43- 44 (1993). Deter minations of CUE in g ener al are based upon the record only as i t exis ted at the t ime of the dec ision in question, se e Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 314; h o wever, whe n deter mining whe ther a

sever ance of ser

vice c onnectio n wa s proper , postdecisional evidenc e is rele vant in deter mining whether the gra

nting of service connec tion was clearly and unmistakably err oneous, see Daniels v. Gober , 1 0 V e t.A

pp . 4 74 , 4 80 (1 99 7)

. I nd e e d, § 3. 10 5( d) do e s no t li mit the re vie wa

ble e vid e nc e to that which wa s befor e the RO in making its ini tial service connec tion awar d and specific ally states that "[a] chang e in diag nosis may be ac cepte d as a ba sis f

or sever ance ," which cle arly contemplates the consider ation of evide nce a cquire d afte r the orig inal g ranting o f service connec tion. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(d). As we re cently observe d in Stallw orth v . Nicholson , b ec au s e t h e S ec re t ary 's burden in a sever ance proce eding "is not a r equire ment that he prove clea r and unmistakable err or in the orig inal decision in the same ma nner a claimant would show CUE unde r section 5109A . . . , the Secr etar

y is not limit ed to the law a

nd the re cord that exi sted at the time of the or igina l decision." Sta llwo rth , 20 Vet.App. 482, 488 ( 2006). The Court' s revie w of a Boa rd decision conce rning CUE is lim ited to deciding whether the Boa rd' s conclusion was "a

rbitrar y , capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in ac corda nce wi th l aw. " 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 1(a)(3) (A); se e Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 315. As part of that review , howeve r, the Court r eviews de novo all questions of law and whether an applicable law or re g ulation

was a pplied. See Joyc e v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 36, 42- 43 (2005). The Court also review s whether the B oard' s decision is supported by an adequ at e statement of r easons or bases. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Ru sse ll, su pra .

IV . A NA LY SIS Allen and Ke y , throug h counsel, c oncede t h at 38 § 3.6(c)(3) ( 1999 & 2000) , was the la w extant at the time of the R O decisions awardingVA bene fits in this matter; they asser t, however , that "[i]t is not undebatable that the decis i on to gr ant disability compensation was barr ed by the p ro v i s i o n s o f .

. . § 3

. 6 (c )( 3 ), " an d ar gu e t h at "t h er e i s e v e r y r e a s o nt o b el i ev e t h at t h e [ R O's d e c is io n s in

M ay o f 1 9 9 9 an d M ar c h o f 2 0 0 0 to g r an t s e r

v ic e c o n n e c ti o n an d

V A b e n e f

it s w e r e ] a8

corr ectapp li cat io n o f t he l aw t o t he fa cts as t hey ex is ted ." Allen B r. a t 8- 9; KeyBr . at 8. As stated above, to e stablish ba sic elig ibilit y for veter ans benef its ba sed on a per iod of duty as a me mber of the Army National Gua

rd of a ny State, a cla imant must show either that he was order ed int o Fe dera l service by the President of the United States, see 10 U.S.C. § 12401, or that his duty was pe rfor

med under the provisions of 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(21), (22)( C), (23). When esta

blishing ser

vice in the U.S. Ar

med For ces, V A is b o u n d b y s ervic e depa rtment finding s. Da c or on v . B ro wn , 4 Ve t.A pp . 1 15 , 1 20 (1 99 3) ; see also Duro v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 530, 532 (1992) ( "V A is p rohi bited from finding , on any basis other than a

service depar

tment document, which VA believes to be authentic and ac curate, or ser vice de partment ve rification, that a par ticular individual serve d in the U.S. Armed F orce s.")

. There i s n o d i spute that the RO dec isions that awarde d Allen and Ke y VA bene fits were rende red w ithout verification of F eder al servic e that would qualify for c ompensation bene fits. After the RO dec isions, the Army National Guar d issued a letter stating that the "N ew Me x ico National Guar d soldiers wer e ac tivated by the Governor . . . under Title 32, U[.]S [.] C[ .,] on st ate a ctive duty ." Allen R

. a t28 1; Key R

. at 89. Here, a s the Boa rd found, the A rmy

National Gua

rd ver ified the N M A N G i n s p e c t o r g e n e r a l ' s o b s e r v a t i o n t h a t A l l e n an d K e y w e r e s e r v i n g o n " s t a t e a c t i v e d u t y" during the New

Mexi co prison riot. Ba sed on that finding , the Board c orre ctly found that VA ha d de te rm ine d th a t A lle n a

nd Ke y did no t ha ve qu a lif y ingse rv ic e fo r V A b e ne fits p ur po se s b e c a

us e their ser vice dur ing the New Me x ico prison riot did "not mee t the defini t i o n o f ac t i ve duty in the Arm ed Forces of th e Uni ted S tat es as speci fi ed at 38 C. F.R . § 3. 6(c) (3) ." Allen R. at 6; KeyR. at 5. The B oard f

urther f ound that the dec ision to award A l l en and K ey VA bene fits was cle arly and

un mi st akab ly

erro neo u s "b ecaus e st ate ser vi ce do es n ot qu ali fy as Fed eral S ervi ce." Id . Neither Allen nor Ke y

disputes that the Gover

nor' s order

into active ser

vice wa s fo r the State of N ew Mexi co. B eca

use Allen a

nd Key wer e ser ving the State of Ne w M ex i co, and the Army National Guar d is only part of the "U nited States Army " for active- duty purposes "w hile in the service of the United States," we hold that Allen a nd Key wer e not e ligible f or VA be nefits base d on any service that can be char acte rized as active duty under se ction 101(21)( A). See 10 U. S.C. § 1 24 01 ; 38 U. S.C. § 101(21)( A); 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(b) (1). F ur the r, Al le n a

nd Ke y a rgue that th e y

are e nti tle d to ve te ra

ns be ne fi ts o n th e ba sis that:9

" Se c tio n 1 01 (2 4) (B ) d e fi ne s ac tiv e mi lit ar yor na val s e rv ic e as ' any period of a ctive duty

[for] training during which the indivi d ual conc erne d was disabled' "; ( 2) " [section] 101(22)( C) define s active duty

training to mea n 'ful l- ti me d ut y ' as a m emb er of th e Arm y Nat io nal Gua rd o f any

st ate "; and (3) neither se cti o n 1 0 1 (2 2)(C) nor § 3.6(c) (3) " makes [any ] di stinction or refe renc e to any di fferen ce bet ween 'St ate du ty rat her t han F e d e r a l d ut y .'" Allen B r. a t 11 -1 3; KeyBr . at 10-11. These a rg uments lack mer it. Their def inition of "ac tive duty

for tra ining" ignor es the statutory

re qu ir e me nt that " in the c a se of me mbe rs of the Ar my Natio na l Gu ard

. . . o f a ny State " the fu ll- tim e duty must be "unde r sec tion 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505 of title 32," 38 U.S.C. § 101(22)( C). The implementing r eg ulation simi larly define s "[a]ctive duty for training " as "[f]ull-tim e duty perf ormed by members of

the National Gua

rd of a ny State, under 32 U.S.C. [§§] 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505." 38 C.F.R. § 3.6(c) (3). Indeed, in a prec eding section of their b ri ef s , the par ties acknow ledg e that

s ec t i o n1 0 1 (2 2 )( C ) m ak es "cl ea r t h at t h e s er v i ce m u s tb e b o t h 'fu l l t i m e' a n d 'u n d er 3 2 U. S

. C

. et c. '" Allen B r. a t 10 ; Key Br

. at 10. Fur ther, we observe that both 10 U.S.C. § 101 and 32 U.S.C. § 101 define "F ull-time National Gu a r d d uty " a s "tra ining or

other duty , other than ina ctive duty , perf ormed by a member

of the Ar my National Gua

rd of t he Un ite d S

tat es . . . . " 10 U.S .C . § 10 1 ( e mph a sis added) ; 32 U .S.C. § 101(19) (empha sis a dded). Acc ording ly , a National Guardsman is e ligible f or VA benefits if order ed int o Fe dera l service by the P resident under 10 U.S.C. § 12401 or to perfor m duty under the provisions of 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505. See 38 U.S

. C

. §§ 101(21), (22)( C), (23). Her e, neither

Allen nor Ke y asser

ts nor does the evidence reflec t that, at t he ti me of the New Mexi co prison riot, they

wer e ser ving on or ders pur suant to 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, or 505– the provisi ons that qualify National Guard dut y for VAbenef its. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.63(c) (3). To the

e xten t th e y

argue that se c tio ns 50 2 and 50 3 are a pp lic a ble to the ir

c la ims , th e pla in l angua g e of tho se sections does not contemplate quelling a riot in a st ate prison as active duty . I nstead, those se ctions

are conce rned only

with training

. See 32 U.S.C. § 502 (noting that member s of the National Guard

are require d to "a ssemble for drill a nd instruction, inc luding indoor targ et prac tice, at least 48 times

eac h y ear " a

nd "pa rticipate in tra ining at enca mpments, maneuver s, outdoor targ et pra ctice, or other exercises, at least 15 day s eac h y ear ") ; 32 U.S.C. § 503 (stating that National Guard ma y be orde red to participate in "e ncampments, mane uvers, outdoor ta rg et pra ctice, or

other e x erc ises for f

ield or10

c o a s t

- d e f e n s e i n s t r u c tio n" ); s ee also Brown v. Gardner , 5 13 U. S. 1 15 , 1 20 (1 99 4) (s ta tin g that, i f meaningof statute is clea r fr om its l ang uag e, then that is " the end of the matter" ). F ur the r, a lth ou g h th e 20 01 VAC& P adv is ory opini on did no t di sc us s sp e c if

ic a lly tho se sections of title 32, it r elied on the Army National Gua rd dete rmination that the NMANG se rvice at the t ime of t he prison riot was not "ac tive duty ." T hus, VA dete rmined that Allen a nd Key wer e not pe rf or min g du ty

un de r t he re qu ir e d se c tio n of tit le 32 that w ou ld r e c og nize the m a s se rv ingwi thi n the Arme d For ces of the United States. L ikewise, the pla in lang uag e of the other a bovementioned sections of title 32 would not encompa ss this t y pe of state participation. See 32 U.S.C. §§ 316, 504, 50 5. Ac c or din g ly , th e re is no au tho ri ty un de r w hic h V A c ou ld c on tin ue se rv ic e -c on ne c te d d isa bil ity compensation pay

m en t s t o Allen and Ke y

for their NMANG se rvice during the Santa F e, Ne w Mexi co, prison riot. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(22)(C), (24)(b), 1131. I ndeed, unde r the Ne w Mexico Annotated Code, "[t]he [G]overnor may , in c ase of insurrec tion, invasion, riot or brea ch of the pe ace or of imminent dang er the reof or in ca se of other

emer gency , order

into ac tiv e se rv ic e of t

he sta te the militi a or a

ny components or pa

rts there of that have not bee n called into fede ral service ." N. M. S TAT
. ANN
. § 20-2-3 ( 2007) (e mphasis added) . Thus, u nder the plain lang uag e of § 20- 2-3, the Gover nor may only order into active ser

vice of the State those Gua

rdsmen that have not been c alled into Fede ral ser

vice. The evidenc e befor e the Boa rd established that Allen and Key have no le g al

e nti tle me nt t o V A s e rv ic e c on ne c tio n a nd , th e re fo re , th e pr ov isi on s o f § 3.10 5( a ) an d (d) , w hic h li mit VA' s ability

to sever se rvice connec tion, do not apply

. S e e V e n t u r e l l a, su

pr a (holding that wher e "evidence establishes that there is no leg al entitlement to service connec tion, the provisions of 38 C.F

. R. § 3

. 1 0 5 ( a ) an d ( d )

. . . d o n o t a p p ly , an d th e p ay

me n t o f [V A ] b e n e f

it s
. . . must be discontinued" ). Be cause Allen and Ke y ' s NMANG se rvice during the New Mexi co prison rio t d o es not constitute active duty

under § 3.6( c)( 3), VA be nefits ar e not war rante d as a matter of l aw
. See Sabo nis v . B ro wn , 6 V e t

. A p p
. 4 2 6 , 4 3 0 ( 1 9 9 4 ) ( h o l d i n g t h a tw h e r e l aw an d n o te v i d e n c e is dispositi ve, cla im should be denied o r ap p eal ter minated bec ause of

lack of leg al merit or lac k of

e nti tle me nt und e r t

he law) ; see also Valiao v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 229, 232 ( 2003) (holding that "[w]here the fac ts averr ed by a cla imant cannot conc eivably result i n any dispositi on of the a ppeal other than a ffirma

nce of the B oard de cision, the ca se should not be rema nded for development that11

c ou ld n ot p os sib ly

c ha ng e the ou tc ome of the de c isi on " ). Th e re fo re , b e c a us e it w a s " c le arl y

ill e g a l" to awar d service connec tion unde r these circ umstances, the Boa rd did not have to deter

mine whether CUE had bee n committed in the May 1999 and March 2000 RO decisions. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105. Any

err or in the Boa

rd' s conclusions in its J anuar y and Apr il 2004 decisions that the RO had committed CUE in Ma

y 1999 and Mar ch 2000 wa s harmless er ror. See 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) ( providing that Court sh a ll t a ke du e a c cou nt of rul e of pr e jud ic ia l e rr or ); see Conway v . Principi , 353 F.3d 1369, 13 75 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) ; see also B ev erl y v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 394, 402- 03 (2006) ( holding Boa rd er ror nonpr ejudicial bec ause the re w as no leg al basis upon which c laimant could pre vail); Ve ntu re lla , s up ra (B oard' s determination of w ell-g roundedne ss is harmless err or whe re c laimant could not preva il as a matter of law base d upon lack of leg al entitlement to service ). F urther, e ven assuming, a s the parties contend, that the B oard f ailed to provide a

n adequate statement of r easons or base s for its deter

mination that the RO's se vera nce of service connec tion was proper , that err or too is nonprejudicia l. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 71 04 (d )( 1) , 7 26 1( b) (2 ); see also NLRB v. W yman- Gordon Co. , 394 U.S. 759, 766 n.6 (1969) (statingt h at j u dicial re view of a g ency ' s action should not be

c on ve rt e d in to a

" pin g -p on g g a me " wh e re re mand is " an id le and

us e le ss f or ma lity " ); Soyini v. Derwinski , 1 Ve t.A

pp
. 54 0, 54 6 (1 99 1) (c on c lud ing that w he re e vid e nc e is o ve rw he lmi ng ly a g a ins t the claim, re mand for r easons- or-ba ses def iciency would be super fluous). Al te rn a tiv e ly , e ve n if

the pr ov isi on s o f § 3. 10 5( d) a pp lie d in thi s matte r, Al le n an d K e y c ou ld not preva il. As noted above, § 3.105 pr ovides that for CUE to e x ist e ither (1) the c orre ct fa cts in,

or con s t ru cti vely

in, the rec ord we re not be fore the adjudicator or (2) the statutory or re g ulatory provisions extant at t he ti me were incorrec tly applied. See D amrel, 6 Vet.App. at 245. A decision that is rever sed or amende d on the basis of C UE "is being revised to c onform to the ' true' state of the fact s o r t he l aw t hat ex is ted at t he t i me o f t he o ri ginal adj ud ica ti on ." Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 313. Allen and Ke y

argue that re liance on the 2001 C&P advisory opinion is i mpermissible beca use that opinion constitut es " a post hoc re-weighing of the fa cts and doe s not constitute clear and unmistakable evide nce to support . .

. VA' s burden to sever an award of disability compensation." Allen B r. a t 8- 15 ; KeyBr . at 7-15. That argument fails for two r easons. I t ignor es that the e x isting law g ov e rn inge nti tle me nt t o V A b e ne fi ts i s th e same a s it wa s a t the tim e the RO te rm inate d th os e benef its. I ndeed, the 2001 advisory opinion was not a " rew eig hing" of fac ts pr eviously known, but12

rathe r wa s a cla

rification of what the lawalway s was, as a pplied to the fac ts as they

exis ted–i.e., that N M A N G s e r v i c e p u r s u an t t o s t at e o r d e r t o qu e l l t h e N e w M e x i c o p r i s o n r i o t w a s n o t " a c t i v e d u t y" for VAbenef

its purposes. Fur ther, the a dvisory

opinion demonstrates that the corr ect fac ts were not properly befor e the adjudicator . I ndisputably , the RO awa rded A llen and Key VA benef its " in the absenc e of ve rified Federa l s ervi ce t h a t w o u l d q u a l i fy for com pen sat io n b enef

it s. " Allen R. at 28 1; KeyR. at 89. Ho we ve r, " VAis p ro hib ite d f ro m fi nd ing , on any ba sis oth e r tha n a se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt d oc ume nt, which VA be lieves to be a uthentic and a ccur ate, or service depar tment verific ation, that a par ticular in di vi du al serv ed i n t he U .S . Ar med Forces ." Cah all v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 232, 237 ( 1994). Ther e
was no a uthority for the RO to a

war d Allen and Key VA bene fits in the absenc e of ve rified se rvice in the U.S. Armed Forc es. See O PM v. R ichmond , 4 96 U. S. 4 14 , 4 16 (1 99 0) (h old ingthat " pa y me nts of mon e y fr om the F e de ra l Tr e a sury are lim ite d to tho se a uth or ize d b y

statut e " ); Ha rv e

yv . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 416, 424 ( 1994) (de ny ing entitlement to statutorily presc ribed benefits bec ause c laimant did not meet the statutory

elig ibilit y

criter ia established by Congr ess). Army National Gua

rd re cords deter mined that Allen and Ke y did not have qualify

ing F eder al s ervic e at the time the RO awa rded the m se rv ic e c on ne c tio n. Th is i s n ot a " ne w" fa c t, b ut r a the r, re fl e c tiv e of the " tr ue " state of

the fa c ts at the time of the unde rly ing RO de cisions. Se e Ru sse ll, su pra . Acc ording ly , as dete rmined above , had the RO not er

red by fail i ng to verify

whether the servic e of A llen and Ke y in the NMANG during the New Mexi co prison riot was "F eder al s ervic e," the out come of the dec ision would have been ma nifestly differ ent–i.e, ser

vice c onnection wou l d have be en denie d based on a finding on nonqualifying se rvice

. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(21), (22)( C), (23), (24), 1131; 38 C. F. R

. § § 3.6(a) , (b )( 1) , ( c )( 3) , 3 .3 03 ; see also 10 U.S.C. §§ 10106, 10107; 32 U.S .C. §§ 316, 502, 503, 504, 505.

V. CO NC LU SION After consideringthe brief

s and a r eview of

the re cord, w e conc lude that neither Allen nor Key have de monstrated that the B oard c ommitt ed lega l or fac tual err or that would wa rra nt reve rsal

or re mand. Acc ording ly , the J anuar y 29, 2004, and Apr il 26, 2004, Boar d decisions ar e AF FI RMED. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).