UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 01-575
B UR DE TT H US TON , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Re mand fr om t he U. S. Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit
(De cided Septembe r 14, 2004 )
Theodore C. Jarvi , o f T e mpe , A ri zon a , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd yCam pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Brian B. Rippel , Acting Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Mi c ha e l R . S ma lls , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore FARL EY, I VERS, and STEI NB ERG, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : The appe llant, throug h counsel, see ks revie w of a Fe bruar y 21, 2001, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) de cision that denied a n eff ective date ea

rlier than June 7, 19 91 , for his De pa rtme nt of Ve te ra

ns Af fa ir s (V A) se rv ic e -c onne c te d b ilate ra l he ari nglos s; that decision also addr essed the issue whether a May 15, 1981, VA re g ional office (RO) de cision denying se rvice connec ti o n f o r that condition containe d clea r and unmistakable err or (CUE) . Record (R.) at 1-3. The appellant and the Secre tary eac h filed brief s, and the a

ppellant filed a

reply brief. The a ppeal to thi s Court was timely

. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 72 52 (a ) a nd 72 66 (a ). On

July 11 , 2 00 3, thi s Court issued an opinion in this case , vacating the B oard de cision and re manding matters for further development a

nd rea djudication. Huston v. Principi , 1 7 V e t

. A p p
. 1 9 5 , 2 0 2

- 0 6 ( 2 0 0 3 )

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, as to the appe llant's c laim for an e arlier eff ective date (EED ) base d on a dire ct cha lleng e to a June 1999 VARO decision (direc t-appe al EED c laim), the Court conc luded that the B oard e rre d by failing to d isc us s th e no ti ce pr ov isi on s o f 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 03 (a ), a s ame nd e d b y the Ve te ra

ns Cla ims Assistance A ct of 2000 (V CAA), Pub. L . No. 106-475, § 3(a) , 114 Stat. 2096, 2096-97, and that the2

rec ord on appe al (ROA) contained no s p ec i fi c notice to the appe llant that met the standard established by new section 5103(a) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b) (2002). Huston , 17 Vet.App. at 202-03. The Court or dere d that claim rema nded to the Boa

rd in order

to obtain compliance w ith those notice provisions. The Court a lso or dere d rema nded to the Boa

rd the a ppellant' s claim for a

n EED base d

on CUE in a May

1981 RO decision (CUE c laim). Id. at 203-06. The Court note d that the VCAA notice provisions do not apply to CUE claims. Id. at 206. The Sec reta

ry appea led this Court's opinion to the U.S. Court of Appea l s fo r t h e F eder al Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit), and the F ede ral Ci rcuit subseque ntly vacated this Court's opinion and

rema nded the matter

for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with it s opinion in Conway v. Principi , 353 F.3d 1369 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004), which he ld that this Court is require d to "' take due acc ount of the rul e of p rej ud ici al e rro r' in all case s addr ess in g th e no ti ce req ui rem ent s i n s ect io n 5 10 3(a) ." Conway , 353 F.3d. at 1375. On J une 28, 2004, the F eder al Circuit issued mandate, a nd the ca se is now bac k befor e this Court. On J uly 9, 2004, the Secr etar

y filed her e a motion to stay proce edin gs pending final disposition i n this Court of McCutche on v. Principi , No. 01-1027, a nd Conwa

y v
. Principi , No. 01-0107. The rea fter, the appellant f iled an opposi tion to the motion for a stay . For the re asons that follow, the Court will vacate the B oard decision as to the CUE claim and r emand that matter for

re a dju dic a tio n. Th e Court wi ll g ra nt i n p art the Se c re tary ' s mo tio n to sta y pr oc e e din g s –

tha t is , w ith respe ct to consideration of the direc t-appe al EE D cl ai m , the Court will sever the a ppeal a s to that claim and de fer

consideration of it pending f urther or der of

the Court.

I. Bac kgr ound Th e ve te ra

n s e rv e d h on or a

bly in t he U. S. A rmy

duri ngWor ld Wa

r I I , f ro m June 19 41 un til September 1945. R. at 11. H e wa s injured on Marc h 11, 1945, when shra pnel from a

hand g rena de struck his left eye and le ft upper jaw; he was awa rded a Purple Hea

rt. R. at 72, 63, 11. On May 15, 1981, the RO denied, inter alia, the ve teran' s initi al claim for VA ser vice c onnection for

bilatera l hear ing loss (R. at 48- 49); the following eviden ce wa s ap pare ntly then of re cord: Mar ch 1945 morning re p o rt s re cordingthat the veter an wa s "slig htly wounded" ; a Marc h 1977 VA re port of medical e x amination for disability evaluation that rec orded "pa rtial deaf ness" (R. at 36); a note of "[p]artial deaf

ness . . . when the veter an wa s hospitaliz ed by VA in J une 1980" ; and an Apr il 19813

audiometric e x amination repor t reve aling a his tory of noise exposure in servic e and r ecor ding the shrapne l wound t o the left jaw

. See R. at 166 (Novembe r 6, 1995, B VA dec ision li sting e vidence befor e RO at time of its May 1981 decision). The RO sent to the veter an in J une 1981 notice of that May 1981 decision. R

. at 5 1 -5 2

. Al so in J une 1981, the ve tera n filed a N otice of D isag ree ment (NOD ), but only

as to a sepa

rate ey e-disability

claim (R. at 53-54), and the RO issued a Statement of the Case (SOC) only

as to the ey e condition (R. at 57-61) . Ten y ear s later, in J une and Dece mber 19 91 , th e ve te ra

n f ile d tw o VA F or

ms 1 -9 (S ub sta

nti ve Ap pe a l to B VA ) ( R. at 72 -7 3 ( re fe rr ingto his hearingproblem but ex p re s s ing disa g ree ment only as to RO ey e-disability

decision), 75- 76 (s ta tin g ve te ra

n w ou ld p re se nt h is c a se a t he ari ng he re qu e ste d) ); it do e s no t a pp e ar t hat th os e a

pp e a ls

wer e eve r ac ted on by

the B oard. I n J une 1993, the vet er an fi led a c laim to reopen his pre viously and fina lly

disallowed service -conne ction claim for bilatera l hear ing loss (R. at 90- 91); the RO denied se rvice connec tion in May 1994 (R. at 104-05) and sent notice of that decision t o the veteran in J une 1994 (R. at 107). The ve tera

n filed an N OD in J une 1994 (R. at 112) , and in J uly 1994 the RO i s sued an SOC ( R

. a t 1 1 5

- 2 1 ) an d

t h e v e t e r anf

i l e d h i s S u b s t an t i v e A p p e a l t o t h e B o ar d ( R

. a t1 2 3

- 2 4 )

. In November

1995, the B oard r eopene d t h e v eteran' s claim based on ne w and mate rial evide nce, inclu d in g a

F e b r u ar y 1 9 7 7 V A me d ic a l r e c o r d n o ti n g th a t t

h e v e te r anh a d

to ld a p h y s ic ia nth a t he had incur red " a g rena de wound to the head" during World War I I and suffere d "subse quent hea ring loss, most sever e in the ri gh t ear" , a condition that " was c onfirmed dur ing this hospitalization by impairment demonst ra t ed on audiog ram" (R. at 63). R. at 166-67. The Boa rd g rante d service

connec tion (R. at 168, 170), and on De cembe r 15, 199 5 , t he RO assig ned a 30% ratingfor that dis a bil ity , eff ect iv e June 29 , 1 99 3, the date of the ve te ra

n' s c la im t o r e op e n. R. at 17 4- 75 . I t is unclea r fr om the ROA when notice of that dec ision was sent to the veter an; t h er e i s n o notice attache d to the RO decision, althoug h there is a J anuar y 10, 1996, letter fr om the RO notifying the veter an of the g rant of se rvice connec tion for his hear ing loss and his am en d ed disability awa rd (takingacc ount of his other ser vice- connec ted disabilities). R. at 178. On Dec ember 18, 1996, the veter an filed a

n NOD a s to the December 1995 RO decision' s assig nment of the June 1993 effe ctive date. R. at 181-82. I n September 1998, the RO issued another de cision in which it determined that there was CUE in the De cembe r 1995 RO dec ision and assig ned an eff ective date of J une 7, 1991,4

the date that "the ve tera

n had re opened his c lai m
. " R

. at 1 8 5-87. That date cor responds to the

re c e ipt date of a VAF or m 1- 9 f ile d b y the ve te ra

n th a t la rg e ly pe rt a ine d to his e y e c la im b ut a lso stated that he w as told during a 1981 examination that his "he aring loss could have been cause d by

a sh arp bla st and the sh ra

pn e l fr om t

he g re na de ." R. at 73 . A lso re c e ive d o n th a t date (a pp are ntl y wi th t hat f or m) we re the 19 77 VAho sp ita l r e po rt (R . at 63 -6 4) ; a

le tte r fr om a

pr ivate he ari ng -a id specia list, attesting to t h e v et er an ' s hear ing loss (R. at 66- 67); and a J une 1991 stateme nt by

an individual, identified as a " Veter ans Service Offic er" , asser ting that the ve tera

n had made two prior applications for

assistance in purcha s i n g h earing aids (R. at 69-70) . I t appea rs that the B oard considere d at least one of these doc uments to be an infor mal claim to reope n. See R. at 185. I n October

1998, the veter an filed a statement-in-suppor

t-of-c laim fo rm in which he reque sted an EED : "I ask that . . . VA c onsider the pr evious final dec ision a product of [CUE], or tha t th e [E E D ] s h o u ld b e e s ta b li s h e d b a s e d o n th e o ld e v id e n c e a s s u p p le me n te d by

the new a nd materia l evidence submitt ed with the re opened c laim." R. at 192. I n J une 1999, the R O denied a n EED becau s e "[ n ] o revision i s warr anted in the de cision to gr ant servic e conne ction for a hear ing l o s s ef fe ct i v e 06-07-91." R. at 195-97. In a De cembe r 1999 SOC, the RO framed the issue as "[w]hether t

h e d e c is io n

to g rant ser

vice c onnection for

a hea ring loss effe ctive 06-07- 91 was [CUE] ." R. at 202- 18 . The ve te ra

n th e n a pp e a le d to the B oa

rd (R . a t 22 0- 21 ), a ft e r whic h th e RO iss ue d in Fe bruar y 2000 a Supplemental SOC, which stated that the Ma y 1981 decision had become f inal on J une 1, 1982, one year

afte r the date of notice of that decision. R. at 229-31. In response , the veter an f i l e d a s t a t e m e n t

- i n - s u

p p o rt

- o f

- c l a i m f o r m , r e qu e s t i n g a s ane f

f e c t i v e d a t e t h e d a t e o f

h i s i n j u r y, Marc h 11, 1945. R. at 223. I n the B VA dec ision here on a ppeal, the B oard de fined the issue be fore it as "[e]ntit lement to an ef fec tive date pr ior to J une 7, 1991, for an aw ard of

service connec tion for bilater al hea ring los s, to i nc lud e wh e the r t he ratin g de c isi on

of Ma y 15 , 1 98 1, wa s c le arl y

and un mis taka

bly

e rr on e ou s. " R. at 1. Th e B oa rd the n de te rm ine d that the re wa s no CU E i n th e Ma y 15 , 1 98 1, RO decision, despite the a

ppellant' s contention that the RO had fa iled to consider 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b) in light of the ve tera

n' s combat status, bec ause " the May 1981 [R O] decision co n t ains a re fer ence t o t h e v et er an 's P u rp l e H ea rtaw ar d , an d as s u ch , i tap p ea rs t h a t t h e R O c o n s i d er edt h e v et er an 's combat ser

vice." R. at 5. The B oard c oncluded that ther e wa s "no indication in the record that the5

law reg arding service connec tion for hearing loss was incorr ectly applied" and that " the veter an has not articulate d a plausible a rg ument based on a

failure to a

pply the law or

misapplication of the law to his case in lig ht of the conte mporane ous evidenc e" ; based on these conclusions, the B oard f ound no CUE in the May

1981 decision. R. at 5-6. The B oard a lso addresse d other grounds for obt aining an EED. Re asoning that the May 1981 RO decision became final beca use the ve tera

n failed to see k appellate revie w within one y ear afte r
ma ili ngof

no tic e of tha t de c isi on , th e B oa

rd c on c lud e d: The fina lity

of th[at] . . . decision pre cludes c onside ration of an eff ective date of the award of service connec tion for hea ring loss prior to th e d a te o f th a t

. . . d e c is ion. S ee 38 U. S.C. [] § 51 10 ; 38 C.F .R. § 3. 4 0 0 (q )(1)(ii). The ve tera n eventua lly

preva iled, as a N ovember 1995 Boa rd decision reope ned the veter an' s claim on the basis of ne w and mater ial evidenc e and g ra n t ed service connec tion for bilatera l hear ing l o s s
. T h a t d e c is io nw a s e f f e c tu a te d b y a D e c e mb e r

1 9 95 [R O ] d e c is io n w h ic h a s s ig n e d an e f f e c ti v e d a te o f Ju n e 29, 1993. The veteran disag ree d with the effec tive date, and a September 1998 [RO] d e c isi on

a ssi g ne d a

n [E ED ] o f June 7, 19 91 , wh ic h is c ur re ntl y in effe ct. The veter an continued to e x press his disag ree ment with the e ff e c tiv e date . A s su c h, the c e ntr a l is su e be fo re the B oa rd is the date the RO rec eived the vetera n' s reque st to reopen his cla im which eventua lly

led to the g rant of se rvice connec tion.
R. at 7. Th e B oa

rd de te rm ine d th a t June 7, 19 91 , w a s th e date of re c e ipt of the ve te ra

n' s r e qu e st t o
re o p en an d t h at "[ p ] ri o r t o t h at d at e, t h e o n l y co rr es p o n d en ce o f r ec o rdp er t ai n s o n l y t o t h e v et er an 's left -e y e disorder, w ith no mention of hearingloss", so there was no ba sis for an EED by direc t challeng e of the claim to reope n. R. at 7.

II. Ana lys is A. P artie s' C ont e ntio ns Th e a pp e lla nt a rgue s p ri nc ipa lly

a s f oll ow s: ( 1) Th e B oa

rd ' s CU E a

na ly sis wa s " ill egal" beca use the Septembe r 1998 RO dec ision, which fo u nd CUE in a prior RO de cision and aw arde d the J une 7, 1991, ef

fec tive date here on appea l, was an " orig inal, non-final a djudication on the issue of ef fec tive date" (B rief (B r.) at 3, 6-8 (c iting 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a ) (2001) )); (2) the B oard " chang ed the iss ue " in t

he a pp e lla nt' s c a se to C UE (B r. a t 8- 10 ); (3 ) V A f a ile d to fu lf

ill its du ty

to s ug g e st6

e vid e nc e ne c e ssa

ry to d e ve lop the a

pp e lla nt' s c la im that th e a

pp e lla nt m ay have ov e rl oo ke d a

nd to tell him that C UE in the May 1981 decision wa s g oing to be an i s s u e o n appea l (Br . at 5, 10-11 (citing , inter alia, 38 C.F .R. § 3 .103(c) (2) ( 2001))) ; and (4) the VCAA re quired that the B oard provide notice to the claimant that it was g oing to de cide his cla im based on CUE (Reply Br . at 3-4). The Sec reta

ry responds a s follows: (1) The F ebrua ry 2001 BV A dec ision finding no CUE in the May 1981 RO decision was not a rbitrar y and ca pricious bec ause the re w as no medica l evidence at that time of nex us be tw e e n th e a pp e lla nt' s c on dit ion

and his se rv ic e and

be c a us e the 38 U. S.C. § 11 5 4 ( b ) p r e s u mp ti o nd o e s n o t a b r o g a te th e me d ic a l- n e xu s r e qu ir e me n t ( B r
. a t 8 , 1 0

- 1 1 ( c iting Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 507 ( 1995), aff' d per curiam , 78 F.3d 60 4 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (table) )); (2) the appe llant merely is disagr eeingwith the weig hing of the evidenc e, which c annot be

a g ro un d f or CU E ( B r. a t 11 ); (3 ) the Ma y 19 81 RO de c isi on

is f ina l and , th e re fo re , th e e ff e c tiv e date of the a ppellant' s service -conne cted he aringloss cannot be e arlier than the date of that rating(B r. at 12); and (4) the appellant asked for the Boa rd to " set aside" the May 1981 RO decision and r aised the issue of CUE himself (B r. at 17 (c iting R. 246-49))

. B . C l a i m S t r e a ms Th e re are tw o c la im str e a ms in the his tor y of the a pp e lla nt' s VA c la ims fo r a hear in g-loss disorder , see 38 C.F.R. §§ 4.85, 4.87a (1980) ; 38 C.F.R. § 4.85, Diag nostic Code (DC) 6100 (2000)

. Af te r r e c e ivi ngno tic e on

June 1, 19 8 1 , t

h a t h i s i nit ia l bi late ra l- he ari ng -l os s se rv ic e -c onne c tio n c la im ha d b e e n d e nie d th e mon th b e fo re by the RO , th e a

pp e lla nt d id no t fi le an NOD a s to that c la im within one y ear ; the ref

ore, that decision beca

me final on J une 1, 1982. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(b)(1) (re quiring NOD to be f

iled within one y ear afte r not ice)

. Fur thermore , even if the appellant's N OD fi l edi nJ u n e 1 9 8 1 an d t h e S OC i s s u ed b y t h e R O th at s am e mo n t h h ad p er t ai n ed t o t h e ap p el l an t 's bilatera l-hea

ring -loss claim, the May

1981 decision still would have be come f inal on J une 1, 1982, beca use the a ppellant fa iled to file a timely Substantive A ppeal afte r the issuance of the SOC. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( d) (3 ) ( re qu ir ingthat a pp e a l be fi le d w ith in 6 0 d ay s a ft e r i ssu anc e of SOC or wi thi n the remainder of the one-y ear period fr om the date of

notice of the RO decision, whiche ver pe riod ends later ); 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b)( 1) (2002)

. The second bi latera l-hea

ring -loss claim s tream was opened on J une 7, 1991, the date that the

a pp e lla nt f ile d wi th the RO wh a t the RO de te rm ine d in Se pte mbe r 1 99 8 w a s a

n in fo rm a l c la im t o7

re op e n. R. at 18 5, 19 6; see R. at 73, 63-64, 66-67, 69-70 ( documents filed on J une 7, 1991). Prior to t hat Se pte mbe r 1 99 8 d e te rm inatio n a nd the awa rd of an e ff e c tiv e date ba se d th e re on , th e RO in May 1994 had denied service connec tion ( R. at 104- 05, 107), the a ppellant in J uly

1994 had appe aled to t he B oa rd (R . at 12 3- 24 ), the B oa

rd in N ov e mbe r 1 99 5 h a d f

ound ne w a nd mate ri a l e vid e nc e to reope n the pre viously

and fina lly

disallowed cla im and had aw arde d servi ce co n nection (R. at 1 6 4 -6 5 , 1 6 7 -6 8 ), an d

t h e R O i nDe ce mb er

1 9 9 5 h a d aw ar d eda 3 0 % b i l at er al -h ea ri n g-l o s s ra t i n g, eff ective June 29, 1993 (R. at 174-76) . I n its S eptember 1998 decision assigni n g t he June 1991 ( in s te a d o f th e Ju n e 1 9 9 3 ) e f f e c ti v e d a te , th e RO d id s o b a s e d o n it s f in d in g of CUE in the Dec ember

1995 decision as to the err oneous awa rd of the June 1993 eff

ective date. R. at 185-87. Th e Court no te s tha t the RO ' s adj ud ic a tio n of the c la im und e r a CUE ana ly sis wa s in e rr or be c a us e the December 1995 RO decision appe ars not to have been f inal. Specifica lly , (1) ther e is no notice to the appellant of that Dec ember 1995 RO decision in the ROA other than a letter dated J anuar

y 10, 1996, that notified the appe llant o f t h e h earing -loss service -conne ction awa rd and his ame nded d i s a b i l i t y aw ar d

( R

. a t 1 7 8 ) , an d

t h e D e c e mb e r

1 8 , 1 9 9 6 , N O D t h u s a

p p e ar s t o h a v e b e e nt i m e l y; ( 2 ) in th e d e c is io n h e r e o n a p p e a l, th e B o ar d

s tate d th a t t h e " [a p p e ll an t] disagreed

with the eff

ective date" assig ned in the Dec ember 1995 RO decision and that "a September 1998 [R O] d ec i sion assig ned an [E E D ] o f

Ju n e 7 , 1 9 9 1 " ( R. a t 7 ( e mp h a s is a d d e d ) ) , th e r e b y in d ic a ti n g th a t t

h e B o ard considere d the appe llant's c laim to be on direc t appea l; and (3) the B oard d i d n o t apply a CUE analy sis to it s re v i ew o f the Septembe r 1998 RO dec ision ( see R. at 6- 8) . A lth ou g h th e RO in September 1998 appar ently err oneously adjudicate d the appe llant's EE D claim on a CUE ba sis, the de c isi on wa s f a vo ra ble to the a

pp e lla nt in that an EE D wa s a ssi g ne d. B e c a us e the a pp e lla nt t ime ly appea led that dec ision, thi s second c laim stream is curr ently still open bef

ore the Court. Th e re fo re , th e Court

ha s b e fo re it the a

pp e lla nt' s E ED c la im b a se d o n tw o d if fe re nt t he or ie s: (1) That the May 1981 RO decision contained CUE; a nd (2) that the appellant is e ntitled to an EED fo r t he 30 % r a tin g ba se d o n a direc t c ha lle ng e to t

he June 19 99 RO de c isi on , th e mos t r e c e nt R O decision in the cur

rent c laim stream. Ac cording ly , there are two separate analyses in the Boa rd decision on appe al: One f or CUE in the May 1981 RO decision, which w as a final decision, and one for the c laim directly

on appea l f

rom the June 1999 RO decision, which was a nonfin al decision and is still on appea l and which subsumes the September 1998 RO de cision. See Mason ( Sangernetta)8

v . B ro wn , 8 Vet.App. 44, 51 (1995) (holding that, g ener ally , eff ective date e arlier

than date a ssigne d in pr e vio us RO de c isi on may be awa rd e d only if the re wa s CUE in that de c isi on or it n e ve r b e c a me final). C. C UE Cla im An RO dec ision that has become f inal, as has the Ma

y 1981 RO decision at issue her e, g ener ally may not be re verse d o r am en d ed in the abse nce of CUE. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A (codify ing into law VA reg

ulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) ); 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) (2002). A f inding of CU E h a s th e fo llo wi nge ff e c t on the pr ior fi na l de c isi on : Where e v i d en ce establishes [CUE] , the prior de cision will be rev e r s e d o r a me n d e d

. F o r th e p u r p o s e o f a u th o r iz in g b e n e f

its, the ratingor other a djudicati ve dec ision which constitutes a reve rsal of a prior de cision on the g rounds of [C UE] has the same e ffe ct as if the co rr ec t ed decision had bee n made on the date of the r ever sed decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) . The CUE claim pre sented he re is a c ollatera l attack on a final RO dec ision. See Cri pp e n v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 4 12 , 4 18 (1 99 6) ; s e e a l s o F ug o v
. B r o wn , 6 Vet.App. 40, 44 (1993). In Russell v. Principi , the Court define d CUE:

Either the c orre ct fa cts, as they wer e k nown at the time, we re not befor e the a djudicator or the statutory or re g ulatory

provisions ex tant at t h e t i m e we re inc orre ctly applied. . . . [CUE is] the sort of e rror wh ic h , h a d it n o t b e e n ma d e , w o u ld h a v e ma n if e s tl y c h an g e d

the outcome

. . . [, an err or that is] undebata ble, so that it c an be sa id that rea sonable minds could only conclude that the original dec ision was fata lly flawe d at the time it was made

. Ru sse ll , 3 Ve t.A

pp . 3 10 , 3 13 -14 (1 99 2) (e n b anc ); se e als o Bu sto s v . W est , 179 F.3d 1378, 1380 (F ed. Cir. 1999) (e x p re s s ly adopting the " manifestly chang ed the outcome " la ng uag e in Ru sse ll , su pra ), cert. de nied , 528 U.S. 967 (1999). I n its en banc opinion in Cook v. Principi , the Fe dera l Circuit reiter ated its holding in Ha y re v . W est , 188 F.3d 1327 (F ed. Cir. 1999), whic h Cook overr uled on other g rounds, t h at the Secr etar y ' s brea ch of the duty

to assist in deny ing a

claim does not constitute CUE. Cook , 318 F.3d 1334, 1336-47 (F ed. Cir. 2002) (r ehea ring en banc ), cert. de nied , 539 U.S. 926 (2003). "A de termination that there was [CUE] must be based on the r ecor d and the law th at e x is tedat t he t im e of t he p ri or .
. . deci si on ." Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 314. "I n order for ther e9

to be a valid claim of [C UE],

. . . [t ]he claimant, in short, must assert more tha n a disag ree ment as to ho w t he fa cts were w eighe d o r eva lu ate d. " Id . at 313; se e als o Da mr e l v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 242 (1994). More over, a

CUE claim must identify the allege d err or(s) with "some deg ree of spec ificity ." Crippen , 9 Ve t.A

pp . at 42 0; Fugo , 6 Vet.A p p . at 44 (" to raise CUE ther e must be some deg ree of spec ificity

as to what the a lleg ed er ror is and . . . pe rsuasive r easons must be g iven as to why the result would have been ma nif estl ydiffer ent" ). Ru sse ll a lso e sta bli sh e d th a t, as a

thr e sh old matte r, a CU E c la im c ann ot b e ra ise d f or the fi rs t time before this Court but instead mus t h av e b ee n the subject of a final prior B VA adjudication. Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 314-15. When the Court considers the a ppeal of a B VA dete rmination that there was no CUE in a pr ior final RO decision, the Court' s review is lim ited to deciding whether the Boa rd' s conclusion is "a

rbitrar y , capr icious, an abuse of di scre tion, or otherw ise not in acc ordanc e wi th l aw" , 3 8 U .S. C. § 72 61 (a )( 3) (A ); see D obbin v . Principi , 15 Vet.App. 323 ( 2001) (discussing "arbi tr ary and c a pr ic iou s" sta

nd ard a s a pp lie d to CU E c la ims ); Damrel , su pra , an d w h e t h e r i tis supported by

an ade quate state ment of " rea sons or bases" , 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1). See B eyrlev. Br own , 9 Ve t.A

pp
. 37 7, 38 2 ( 19 96 ); se e als o Ru sse ll , 3 Ve t.A pp . at 31 5; Ed

dy v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 52, 57 (1996). I n the BVA decision here on appea l, the Board determined that there was no CUE in the May 1981 RO decision. There fore , the issue is proper ly raised be fore this Court. Se e Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 314-315. The Boa

rd co n s i d er ed the appe llant's a rg ument that "the May

1981 [R O] decision contained CUE in that the RO ha d failed to c onsider the pr ovisions of 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b), r eg arding

c omb a t ve te ra

ns " , a nd c on c lud e d: [T]he B oa

rd no te s th a t th e Ma

y 19 81 [RO] d e c isi on

c on ta ins a re fe re nc e to t

he [ap pe lla

nt]' s Purp le He art

awa rd , a nd a s su c h, it appea rs that the RO consi d ered the [appellant]'s combat service

. Ho we ve r, e ve n a c c e pti ngthat th e [ap pe lla nt] wa s expos e d to a c ou sti c trauma dur ing se rvice , the evidenc e at the time of the May 1981 [R O] decision simply did not contain a medical opinion relating any curr ent hear ing loss to the [appellant]'s military service

. R. at 5. Se c tio n 1 15 4( b) pr ov ide s in pe rt ine nt p art : (b ) I n th e c a se of

any ve te ra n w ho e ng a g e d in c omb a t w ith the ene my

in active se rvice . . . during a per iod of war . . . , the10 Secre tary shall acc ept as suff

icient proof of

service [] conne ct i o n of any disease or

injury alleg ed to have been incurre d in or ag g ravated by s u c h s e r

v ic e s a ti s f

a c to r y la y o r o th e r e v id e n c e o f

s e rvice inc ur re nc e or a g g ra vatio n o f s uc h in

jur y or dis e a se , if c on sis te nt w ith the circ umstances, c onditio n s , or har dships of such servic e, notwithstanding the fact that ther e is no offic ial rec ord of suc h inc ur re nc e or a g g ra vatio n in su ch ser

vic e , a nd , to that e nd , s ha ll r e s o lv e e v e r

y rea s o n a b le d o u b t i nf a v o r o f th e v e te r an
. Se r

v ic e [] connec tion of such injury or disease may

be r ebutted by

clea r and convincingevidenc e to the contrar y
. The re asons for g rantingor de nyingse rv ic e []co nn e c tio n in e a c h c a se sh a ll b e re c or de d in fu ll. 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). I n 1981, an identica l provision appear ed at 38 U.S.C. § 354(b) ( 1976). The B oard is re quired to consider , an d d i scuss in its decision, all "potentially applicable " provisions of law and r egulation, as well as to include in its decision an a dequate written statement of re asons or ba ses for its findings and conclusions on all materia l issues of fac t and law pr esente d

on the re c or d. 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ), (d )( 1) ; see W eave r v. Principi , 14 Vet.App. 301, 302 (2001) ( per
c ur iam or de r) ; Al lda

yv . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; Sanden v. D erwinski , 2 Vet.App. 97, 10 0 ( 19 92 ); Schafrath v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 5 89 , 5 93 (1 99 1) ; Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990). I n the instant c ase, the Boa rd err ed by failing to pr ovide an adequate s tatement of re asons or ba ses for its concl u s i o n t h at in its May 1981 decision the " RO considere d the [ap pe lla nt]' s c omb a t se rv ic e " (R

. a t 5) ; sp e c if ic a lly , the B oa

rd re lie d s ole ly

on the RO ' s m ention of the appe llant's Purple H ear t awar d as evide nce that it so "c onsidered" (R. at 5), without eva luating wheth e r o r n o t th e RO h a d a d e qu a te ly c o n s id e r e d , a s s e c ti o n 3 5 4 ( b ) th e n ma n d a te d (and a s section 1154(b) now mandates) that it must , whether there was " satisfac tory

lay or other e vidence of ser vice incur renc e or ag g ravation .

. . notwithstanding the fac t that the re is no official re cord of such i n cu rrence or

ag g ravation in such service ", 38 U .S.C. § 354(b) (1976); 38 U.S.C. § 1154(b). See 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 7 1 0 4 ( a ) , (d )( 1) ; cf

. R. at 167-68 (Nove mber 1995 B VA dec ision where B oard applied sec tion 1154 in li g ht of appe llant's c ombat service ). Irre spective of that err or, howe ver, the B oa rd c or re c tly c on c lud e d th a t " the e vid e nc e a t th e tim e of the May 19 81 [RO] d e c isi on

sim ply did not contain a medical opinion r elating any curr ent hea

ring loss to the [ appellant]' s mili tary service " (R

. at 5 ); s u ch a m ed i ca l n ex u s o p i n i o ni s re qu i re d i n o rd er fo r s erv i ce co n n ec t i o no f t h e ap p el l an t 's hear ing loss to be established. See 38 U. S.C. § 3 54 (b ) ( 19 76 ); 38 U. S.C. § 1 15 4( b) ; Cly bu rn v . W est ,11

1 2 V e t. A p p
. 2 9 6 , 3 0 3 ( 1 9 9 9 ) ( h o ld in g th a t " th e p r o v is io n s o f s e c ti o n 1 1 5 4 ( b ) d o n o t p rovide a substitut e for

med i ca l -n ex u s evidenc e, but rather ser ve only to reduc e the e videntiary burden f or combat vete rans with re spect to the sec ond Caluz a require ment, [t hat i s,] t he submission of evidence

o f i n cu rr en ce o r a ggra v at i o n o f a ni n j u ry o r d i s ea s e i ns erv i ce ", an d ci t i n g W

ad e v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 302, 305 ( 1998) (makingsame holding "pur suant to [s ection] 1154(b) and Collette [ v. Br own , 82 F.3d 389 (F ed. Cir. 1996) ]), and Ar ms v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 188, 194 ( 1999)). The ref ore, beca use the appellant could not possibly preva il on his hearing -loss claim in the absenc e of a ny such

me dic a l e vid e nc e , th e e vid e nc e be fo re the RO in M ay 19 81 wa s " ov e rwhe lmi ng [ly ]" a g a ins t hi s claim and the B oard' s rea sons-or-ba ses er ror in not di scussing section 354(b) is thus nonprejudicial

err or under

38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2). Soyini v. De rwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 5 40 , 5 46 (1 99 1) ; se e Cly bu rn , su pra (holding that failure t o d i s cuss sec tion 1154(b) was nonpr ejudicial er ror be cause of lac k of medical e vid en ce co n nectingin-servic e incur renc e of c ombat veter an' s knee c ondition to current knee disa bility ). The Court not es t hat, contrary to the appellant's contentions, the Board did not "chang e[] the issues on [hi s] appeal" (B r. at 8), be cause the appe llant himself rai s ed t h e is sue of CUE in an October 1998 statement-in-suppor t-of-c laim form in which he r equeste d an EED: " Iask that . . . VA

c ons ide r the p re v iou s f

ina l de c ision a pr od

uc t of [C UE ] " (R. at 192 (empha sis added)) . Howeve r, the B oard should not have p ro ce eded to adjudicate the CUE c laim in the first instance without offe ring to remand the question to the RO. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A(e) ( direc ting that c laim of CUE in RO decision be submitted to Secreta ry "a nd shall b e d ec ided in the same ma nner a s any

other

c la im" ); Ma rsh v . W

est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 471 (1998) ( "A t the very least, the B oard w as oblig ated to ask the veteran whether he objected to the B oard' s adjudication of the N OD jurisdictional issue in the first instance and to include in the statement of rea sons or bases f

or its decision an e x planation

a s to wh y su c h a dju dic a tio n in th e fir st i ns tanc e wa s n ot p re jud ic ia l to him ." ); Sutton v . B ro wn , 9 V e t.A pp . 5 53 , 5 64 -7 0 ( 19 96 ); se e als o Di sa ble d A m. Ve te ra ns v . S e c 'y o f V e te ra ns Af

fai rs , 32 7 F .3 d 1 33 9, 13 41 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 3) (i nv a lid a tin g 38 C.F .R. § 1 9. 9( a )( 2) a s " c on tr ary " to 3 8 U .S. C. § 7104(a) beca

use "it allows the Boa

rd to c onsider additional evidenc e without having to r emand the

case to the [age ncy

of orig inal jurisdiction] for initial consideration and without having to obtain the appellant' s waiver ") . That er ror, unlike the re asons-or- bases de fec t in the Boa rd dec ision, cannot be12

consider e d

nonprejudicia l under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)( 2), bec ause w e ca nnot decide that the appellant could not possibly

have pr evailed on the claim had the matter bee n sent bac k to the RO for initial CU E a d ju d ic a ti o n
. C

f

. V a l i a o v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 229, 232 ( 2003) (noting that "[w]here the fac ts averr ed by

a cla imant cannot conc eivably result in any

dispositi on of the a p p ea l o t h er tha n aff irmance of the B oard de cision, the ca se should not be rema nded for de velopment that could not possibly chang e the outcome of the de cision" a nd that "f

ailure to c arr

y out such requir ed development unde r those cir cumstance s is nonprejudicial er ror unde r sec tion 7261(b)(2)" ). Specifica lly , beca

use one of the documents on which the Boa rd principally relied in reope ning a nd

awa rding the appellant' s claim for service connec tion for bilatera l hear ing loss in Novembe r 1995 was the F ebrua

ry 1977 VA medica l rec ord re fer ring to the appellant' s "g rena de wound to the he ad" during World W ar I Iand " subsequent hea ring loss, most severe in the rig ht ear " that was " confirme d duri ng[that] ho spit ali z a tio n" (R . at 63 ; see R. at 166-67), it is possible that init ial adjudication of the a pp e lla nt' s c la im b y

the RO c ou ld h a ve pr e c ipi tate d f ur the r c la im- de ve lop me nt a c tio n that w ou ld have disc overe d that evidenc e and resulted in a favorable deter mination of his claim. I t would be pure spe culation to conclude otherwise. Cf. 38 U. S.C. § 72 61 (b )( 2)

. Thus , the Court wi ll v a c a te the B oard de cision on this ground. As for the appellant' s contentions reg arding the application of t he VCAA notice provisions to his CUE claim (Reply at 3 -4 ), the Court has he ld that these provisions do not apply to CUE claims. See Livesay v . Principi , 15 Ve t.A pp
. 16 5, 17 9 (2 00 1) (e n banc ); Parker v . Principi , 15 Ve t.A pp . 4 07 , 4 12 (2 00 2) ; se e als o Juarez v . Principi , 15 Vet.App. 518, 520- 21 (2002).

D. Di re c t- App e al E ED Cla im The Sec reta

ry seeks to stay

proce eding s in the instant case pe nding the final disposition of McCutche on v. Principi , No. 01-1027, a nd Conway v. Principi , No. 01-0107

. I n opposition, t he appellant a

rg ues that the Sec reta

ry "f ails to explain how future dec isions would affec t this case" and that this Court's dec ision in Pelegrini v. Principi , 1 8 V e t.A pp . 1 12 (2 00 4) , p ro vid e s a deq uate prec edential a

uth o ri t y for a pplication of 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a). Re sponse at 2-3. I n the intere st of judicial economy

and more prompt resolution of the appe llant's CUE c laim, the Court will sever the direc t-appe al EED claim and stay further proce eding s as t o that claim pendingfurther order of the Court. See U. S. V ET
. A PP
. R. 5(a) (1)( C).13 III. Conclusi on Upon con s i d er at i o no f t h e f o re go i n g an al y s i s , t h e R OA , an d t h e p ar t i es ' p l ea dings, a

nd having "take[n] due ac count of the r ule of pre judicial err or" under 38 U .S.C. § 7261(b)(2), the Court va cate s the Februa

ry 2001 Boa

rd dec ision in part and re mands the CUE matter f or expeditious further development and issuance of a rea djudicated decision supported by an ade quate state ment of re asons or base s, see 38 U.S.C. §§ 1110, 5107, 5109A, 7104(a), ( d)(1) ; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.105, 3.400(q)(1) (ii), (r ); 38 C.F .R. §§ 4. 85 , 4 .8 7a (1 98 0) ; Fletche r v
. D e rwi n ski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 3 94 , 3 97 (1 99 1) , a ll consistent

w it h th is o p in io nan d

in a c c o r d an c e w it

h 3 8 U

. S. C. § 7 1 1 2 ( a s a d d e d b y th e V e te rans B e ne fi ts A c t of

20 03 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 8- 18 3, § 7 07 (b ), 11 7 St a t. 2 65 1, 26 73 ) ( re qu ir ingSe c re tary to "take such a ctions as m ay be necessar y to provide for the ex peditious treatment by the B oard of any claim that is remande d to the Secre tary by the Court") , see Vargas- Gonzalez v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 222, 225-30 (2001) (holding that section 302 of Ve tera ns' Be nefits I mprovements Ac t of 1994, Pub . L . N o. 10 3- 44 6, § 3 02 , 1 08 Stat. 4 64 5, 46 58 , p re de c e sso r o f s e c tion 71 12 , app lie s to a ll elements of a

claim re manded by the C ourt or B oard) , and in ac corda nce w ith all applicable law and regulation. See A llday , 7 Ve t.A pp . at 53 3- 34 . O n r e mand , th e a pp e llan t w ill be fr e e to s ub mit additional evidenc e and ( to the extent appropriate f or a CUE c laim) argument on the rem anded claim, and the Boa

rd i s require d to consider any such evidence and argument. See Kay v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 ( 2002). A re mand by this Court or by the B oard c onfer s on an appe llant the

r i g h t t o V A c o mp l i an c e w i t h t h e t e r m s o f t h e r e m an d o r d e r an d i mp o s e s o n t h e S e c r e t a r y a concomitant duty

to ensure c ompliance with those ter ms. Se e Ste

ga ll v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). A f

inal decision by

the B o ar d fo l l o wing the re mand her ein orde red w ill constit ute a ne w decision that, if adv erse, may be appe aled to this Court only upon the filing of a ne w Notice of Appea l with the Court not later than 120 day s afte r the date on which notice of the B oard' s new fina l decision is mailed to the appe llant. Se e Ma rsh , 11 Vet.App. at 472. The Court seve rs the dire ct-a ppeal EED claim and, a s to that claim, g rants in par t the Secre tary ' s J uly 9, 2004, motion for a stay and holds that matter in abe y ance pending further order of the Court. It is so ordered. VACATED A

ND REMANDED I

N PART.