UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR VE TER AN S CL AI M S

N O
. 02-742
E L I Z AB ETH H. B ONN ER , 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
(Argued Mar ch 15, 2005 De cided June 17, 2005 )
Mark H. B onner , o f G re a t F a lls , V ir g ini a , f or the a pp e lla nt. Chr ist ineM. Cot e , w ithwh om Tim S. Mc Cla in , General Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Mi c ha e l A . Le on ar d , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for the appe llee.
Be fore I VERS, Chief Judge , an d G R E E N E , an d

H A G E L, Judges

. GREENE, Judge , filed t he opini on of t he C ourt. HAGEL , Judge , filed a c oncurr ing opinion. GREENE, Judge : Mr s. El iza be th H

. B onne r, wi do w of ve te ra n E mme t P. B onne r, a

pp e a ls, throug h counsel, a September 27, 2001, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision that denied a

n eff ective date ea

rlier than N ovember

1994 for an awa

rd of depende ncy and indemnit y compensation (DI C). Record ( R.) at 1-35. Mrs. B onner a rg ues that under

38 U.S.C. § 5110(g) , 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 (2 00 4) , a nd VAOf fi c e of General Couns e l op ini on s sh e is e nti tle d to an e ff e c tiv e date of

Au g us t 1 9 7 5 f o r h e r D I C b e n e f

it s
. A p p e ll an t' s B r ie f

( B r
. ) at 4

- 1 0

. Sh e f

u rth e r ma in ta in s th a t t

h e Boa rd

err ed by ruling that her orig inal service -conne ction claim in 1975 did not include a c laim for nonHodg kin's ly

mphoma. Id . The Sec reta ry contends that the B oard de cision should be af firmed in that the B oard ha d a plausibl e basis in the record for deny ing an effec tive date e arlier than Novembe r 1, 1994. He a lso asserts that the B oard' s decision was suppor ted by an ade quate state ment of re asons or base s. Secre tary ' s Br . at 6-12. F or the re asons that follow, the B oard de cision will be aff irmed.2 I. F AC TS Veter an Emmett P. B onner serve d honorably in the U.S. Navy from June 1939 to April 1972, including se rvice in World W ar I I , the Kore an C onflict, and Vietnam. R. at 38. I n September 1972, he wa s awa

rded VA service connec tion f or a hernia and hear ing loss. R. at 189-90, 292. Mr . Bonne r d i e d o nA u g u s t1 , 1 9 7 5

. R

. a t 2 8 1

. In S e p t e mb e r 1 9 7 5 , M r s
. B o n n e r f i l e d ana p p l i c a t i o nf

o r D IC and cla imed that her husband died from canc er. R. at 276- 79. Mr. B onner' s death c ertificate listed Hodg kin's disease as the c ause of his death. R. at 281. An autopsy repor t from the National Naval Medica l Center also noted that Mr. Bonne r' s death was cause d by an "undiffe rentiate d tumor, which

was felt to be most c onsistent with Hodg kin's disease." R. at 288-89. A VA r eg ional office (RO) de nie d h e r c la im i n Fe br

ua ry 19 76 a ft e r fi nd ingthat Mr . B onne r' s H od g kin ' s d ise a se de ve lop e d in J anuar y 1975, three y ear s after

his retireme nt from the Navy , and that in his service medical r ecor ds the re wa s no e vid e nc e of

his havin g sy

mpt oms of

that c on dit ion

wh ile in s e rv ic e . R. a t 29 2. She did not appea l that decision. See R. at 1-744. I n October

1990, the S ecr etar

y promulg ated VA regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 (1991), which pro v id e d , a s it d o e s n o w , " [s ]e r v ic e in V ie tn a m d

u r in g th e V ie tn a m E r a to g e the r with the de ve lop me nt o f n on -H od g kin ' s ly mph oma manif e ste d s ub se qu e nt t o s uc h s e rv ic e is s uf fi c ie nt t o
e sta bli shse rv ic e c on ne c tio n f or that di se a se ." 38 C.F .R. § 3 .3 13 (b). Th e e ff e c tiv e date fo r t

his provision was August 5, 1964, th e beg inning date of the V ietnam er a. See Mc Cay v . B ro wn , 9 V e t.A pp . 1 83 , 1 88 (1 99 6) ; see also 55 Fe d. Reg . 43,123 (Oc t. 26, 1990). I n Fe bruar y 1994, the VA Ge nera l Counsel formally opined: An ef fec tive date for service connec tion of non-Hodgk in's lymphoma under 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 may g ener ally be base d on the date of

rec eipt by the De pa rtme nt o f V e te ra

ns Af fa ir s o f a n ori g ina l c la im for that be ne fit filed on or a fter Aug ust 5, 1964, reg ardle ss of whethe r the claim had pr eviously

been de nied, if t

hec lai ma nt was oth e rwi se e lig ibl e on theda te of c lai m . VA Gen. Coun. Pre c. 5-1994 (F eb. 18, 1994) [hereinaf ter G.C. Prec. 5-1994] ( emphasi s ad d ed ). Also in F ebrua

ry 1994, VA issued a r egulation that stated, as it does now: " I f a ve tera n was e x posed to an her bicide ag ent duringactive military , naval, or ai r s er v i ce , the following diseases sha ll be

se rv ic e -c onne c te d .

. . e ve n th ou g h th e re is n o r e c or d o f such dis e a se duri ngse rv ic e ." 38 C.F .R. § 3.309(e) (1994). Hodg kin's disea se and non- Hodg kin's ly mpho m a we re listed as disea ses3

presumed se rvice connec ted under this reg ulation. Id . The e ffe ctive date of that libera liz ing regulation was F ebrua

ry 3, 1994. 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) ; 59 Fed. Re g . 5106 (F eb. 3, 1994). I n November 1995, Mrs. Bonne r informed the RO that a National I nstitut es of Hea lth (NI H) oncolog ist had review ed ti ssue s amples and slides from Mr. Bonne r' s autopsy and had r eviewe d Mr. Bonne r' s service medical r ecor ds. R. at 309. The o n co l o g ist diagnose d Mr. B onner' s tumor as "simulating Hodg ki n 's d i s ea s e." R. at 302. The examiner a lso noted that "Immunohist ochemica l stu die s f a vo r[e d] the dia g no sis of

no n- Ho dg kin ' s ly

mph oma ." R. at 30 3. Mr s. B onne r a sse rt e d to the RO that, b as ed upon this evidence , the ea rlier de nial of her

DI C claim was er

roneous a nd that under 38 C.F .R. § 3.313, she was e ntitled to DI C eff ective in 1975, the year

that she orig inally

filed her D I C claim. Id . The RO considere d the medical evidenc e and the F ebrua ry 1994 chang e in the l aw re gar d i n g p re s u mp t i o n s o f se rv i ce co n n ec t i o n fo r Ho d gk i n 's d i s ea s e an d n o n -H o d gk i n 's ly mphoma, and in a Nove mber 1995 de cision stated:

The ve tera

n' s death c ertificate showed the primary cause of death a s Hodg kin's disea se. No other conditions w ere shown as contributing to the cause of death. The letter f rom [Mrs. Bonner] indicated that the diag nosis of Hodg kin's disea se by the National Na

val Medica l Center in B ethesda , [Mary land,] wa s in e rror
. Mrs. Bonne r indicate d that a fur ther study by the [ NI H] indi cate d that in fac t the disease w as non-Hodg kin's ly

m p homa. The ve tera

n serve d in the Republic of Vietnam du ri ng the Vietnam e ra, [and] is presumed to have be en e xpos e d to a

he rb ic ide c on ta ini ngdi ox in ( Ag e nt O ra ng e ) whil e in Vietnam. B oth Hodg kin's disea se and non- H odg kin's ly mphoma may be ca used by exposure to a her

bicide cont ai ning dioxin. Theref ore, service connec tion for ca

use of de ath is established. R. at 312. The RO construe d Mrs. Bonne r' s inquiries on this matter as an informal claim for r eview and found that the evidenc e showed Hodg kin's disease was the cause of Mr. B onner' s death. R. at 31 2-13. Mr s. B on ne r w a s awa rd e d D I C e ff

e c tiv e No ve mbe r 1 99 5, the date of he r i nf or ma l c la im for r eview. Id . Mrs. Bonne r disag ree d with the ef fec tive date, a

nd, in a J uly

1996 Statement of the Case (SOC), the RO, unde r 38 C.F.R. § 3

. 1 1 4 (1995) ( if a c laim is reviewe d at the re quest of the claimant more than one y ear afte r the e ffe ctive date of the lawor VA issue, b en efits may be authorized for a

period of one y ear

prior to the date of re ceipt of suc h reque st), assig ned an e arlier

e ff e c tiv e date of

No ve mbe r 1 99 4. R. at 31 8- 22

. Th e RO ru le d th a t Mr s. B onne r' s r e op e ne d c la im was filed mor e than a

y ear afte r the libera liz ing la

w authorizing a pre sumption of service c onnection4

for H o d g k in ' s d is e a s e b a s e d o n h e r b ic id e e xp o s u r e w a s p r o mu lg a te d , an d th a t, th e r e f o r e, under 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 14 (a )( 3) sh e wa s e nti tle d to an e ff e c tiv e date on e y e ar pr ior to the date of he r r e qu e st for r eview. See R. at 320-22. Mr s. B on ne r a

pp e a le d to the B oa

rd and argue d th a t she sh ou ld h a ve re c e ive d a n e ff e c tiv e date of August 1, 1975. R. at 324-39. The B oard f ound: [B]ecause the RO construed the appellant' s November 1995 claim as a reque st to conduct a de novo or new revie w of her origina l claim for DIC b as e d

o nt h e s am e f

ac t s , i

. e. , cau s e o f d ea t h fr o m Ho d gk i n 's disease, unde r libera liz ing pr ovis i ons[,] which now pr ovided a presumption of ser

vice c onnection for Hodg kin's disease and ther eby cre at ed a ne w ca

use of a ction, the RO was a ble to g rant a

n ear lier eff ective da te of November 1, 1994, under the exception to the g ener al rule g overningthe assig nment of ef fec tive dates for a

war ds based on liber alizing laws. . . . There fore , the RO construe d the app e lla n t ' s c l a i m i n t h e w ay m o s t b e n e f i c i a l t o h e r b e c a

u s e it permitted her

to rec eive pay

ment of DI C for a

y ear prior to re ceipt of the Novembe r 1995 cla im. R. at 32 -3 3. Th e B oa

rd a lso c on c lud e d that an ef fe c tiv e date e arl ie r tha

n Nov e mbe r 1, 199 4, wo uld not h av e been a ssigne d had the RO de termined that non-H odg kin's ly mphoma had ca

used Mr. B onne r' s d e a th. R. at 30 -3 1. Th e B oa rd state d: [E] ven assuming , without deci d i ng , that the appe llant's r eadingof [G.C. P rec . 5-1994] as p ro v i ding " benef its under [§] 3.313(b) retroa ctively

eff ective to the date of

the orig inal claim, re g ardle ss of whether the claim had be en pre viously denied," is corre ct, the B oard conclude s that the previous de nial in such a case must have bee n a d en i al o f a cl ai m fo r se rv i ce co nn ec t i o n o f [ n o n -H o d gk i n 's ly mphoma], not a d en i al of ser vice c onnection for

another disease. Thus , th e B oa

rd ne e d not re a c h the iss ue of wh e the r a

n e ff e c tiv e date fo r a n a wa rd of DI C ba se d o n th e date of the a pp e lla nt' s o ri g ina l c la im wo uld have be e n w arr ante d in thi s c a se ha d the RO awa rd e d DI C in 1995 based on cause of death from [ non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma] under 38 C.F .R. § 3. 31 3 be c a

us e the de nia l of a

pp e lla nt' s or ig ina l c la im i n 1976 was a

denial base d on cause of death from Hodg kin's disea se, n o t [ n o n - H o d g k in ' s ly

mp h o ma ]. Concerningthis, the Boar d notes that, by submitt ing e vidence in 1995 to show that, based on a study done by experts at NI H in J une 1 9 9 5 , t h e c au s e o f t h e v et er an 's d ea t h wa s ac tu al l y [ n o n -H o d g k i n 's ly mphoma] and not Hodgkin' s disease, the appellant wa s not5 reque sting that the VA revie w her orig inal claim under

liberalizing laws ena cted since the 1976 denial, but rathe r she was requesting that the VA reope n her orig inal claim on a new fac tual basi s –a factual basis other than the one on which the claim wa s considere d in 1976. The latter is not a re q u est for " revie w" of the same claim, i.e., the same fac ts , under a

new law or newtheory

o f l ega l entitlement but rathe r a r equest to r eopen the orig inal claim on a ne w fa ctual basis as shown by new a nd materia l evidence submitt ed in 1995. Id . This appea l followed.

II. CONTENTIO NS ON AP P EAL Mrs. Bonne r ar g ues that, u n d er 3 8 U. S.C. § 5110(g) , 38 C.F.R. § 3.313, and VA G ener al Counsel opinions i nterpre ting these provisions, she is entitled to a September 1975 eff ective da te for her D I C. Appellant' s Br

. at 4-10. She maintains that her orig inal claim for " canc er" in September 1 9 7 5 ( R. at 276-79) enc ompassed, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.313(b), a

claim for non- Hodg kin's ly mphoma. Id

. Alternatively she contends that her DI C awa rd based on Hodg kin's disea se as the c ause of her husband' s death e ntitles her to an ea rlier e ffe ctive date under Ne h me r v. U. S. Dep't of Veterans Af fai rs , 32 F. Supp. 2d 1175 (N.D . Cal. 1999) [hereinaf ter Nehmer I

I ]. Id

. a t 1 0

. F in a ll y , at ora l

argume nt b e fo re the Court , Mr s. B on ne r a sse rt e d that in t he int e re st o f f

a ir ne ss a nd e qu ity sh e sh ou ld be aw arde d an ef

fec tive date of

1975. T h e S ec re t ary

as s er t s t h at t h er e w as a p l au s i b l e b as i s i n t h e r ec o rdfo r t h e B o ar d 's de te rm inatio n th a t N ov e mbe r 1 , 1 99 4, wa s th e pr op e r e ff e c tive date f

or Mr s. B onne r' s D I C. Se c re tary ' s B r. a t 4, 6- 12 . H e fu rt he r m a int a ins that th e B oa rd de c isi on wa s supp or

te d by an a de qu a te statement of r easons or

bases. Id

.

III . A NA LY SIS Gene rally ,"the eff

ective date of a

n awa rd based on an original c laim, a claim re opened a fter fi na l a dju dic a tio n, or

a c la im f or inc re a se , o f c omp e ns a tio n, [DI C], o r p e ns io n, sh a ll b e fi xed in

acc ordanc e with th e fa ct s fo u n d, but shall not be ear lier than the date of re ceipt of a pplication the re fo r. " 38 U. S.C. § 5 11 0( a ); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (2004). T h e ef fec tive date of

a re opened claim is either the date of application to reopen or is e stablished in acc ordanc e with the fa cts found,6

whicheve r is later. Se e Lin k v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 39, 46 ( 1998). Unde r 3 8 C

. F. R . § 3.313(b), "[ s ] erv i ce i nVi e t n am d

u ri n g t h e V i et n am E rat o get h er wi t ht h e d ev el o p m en to f n o n -H o d gk i n 's ly mphoma manifested subse quent to s u ch ser vice is suffic ient to establish service connec tion for that disease." The e ffe ctive date for this provision is Aug ust 5, 1964, the beg inning date of the Vietnam

era
. See McCay , 9 Ve t.A

pp . at 18 8; see also 55 Fe d. Reg

. 43,123 (Oc t. 26, 1990). Additionally , VA

re g ulatio n § 3. 11 4( a ) p ro vid e s:

(a) Effe ctive date of aw ard. Where pens io n , c o mp e n sation, [or DI C] , . . . is awa

rded or incre ased pursuant to a libera liz ing la w, or a l i b er al i z i n g VA i s s u e ap p ro v ed b y t h e S ec re t ary o r b y t h e S ec re t ary 's direc tion, the e ffe ctive date of such awa rd or incre ase shall be fixed in acc ordanc e with the fa cts found, but shall no t b e ear lier than the eff ective date of the a ct or a dminist rative issue. Where pe nsion, compensation, [ or DI C] , . . . is awar ded or incre as ed p u rsuant to a liberalizing lawor VA issue w h i ch beca me ef fec tive on or af

ter the date of its e na c tme nt or iss ua nc e , in or de r fo r a c la ima

nt t o b e e lig ibl e f o r r e tr o a c ti v e p ay

me n t u n d e r th e p r o v is io n s o f th is p ar a g raph the evidenc e must show that the claimant met a ll eligibility criter ia for the libera liz ed bene fit on the eff ective date of the libera liz ing la w or VAiss ue and that su c h e lig ibi lity e xiste d c on tin uo us ly fr om t hat date to t he date of c la im o r a dmi nis tr a tiv e de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt. (1) I f a c laim is reviewe d on the initiative of VA within 1 y ear from the eff

ective date of the law or VA issue, or at the reque st of a claimant re ceive d within 1 y ear from that date , b enef

its may be authorized from the e ffe ctive date of the lawor VA issue. (2) I f a c laim is reviewe d on the ini t i ati ve of V A more tha n 1 y ear afte r the eff

ective date of the law or VA issue, benef its may be authorized for a

period of 1 y ear p ri o r t o the date of administrative de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt. (3) I f a claim is reviewe d at the re quest of the c laimant more tha n 1 y e ar a ft e r t

he effect iv e date of

the law o r V A i ssu e , b e ne fi ts may be author ized for a pe riod of 1 y ear prior to the date of re ceipt of su c h r e qu e st. 38 C.F.R. § 3.114(a) (1), ( a)( 2), (a )(3) (2004). Th e B oa rd ' s d e te rm inatio n o f a

n e arl ie r e ff

e c tiv e date is r e vie wed un de r t he " c le arl y
err oneous" standard of revie w set for th in 38 U.S.C . § 7261(a) (4). Se e Ha ns on v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App.7

29, 32 (1996). "' A findi ng is ' clea rly err oneous' when although there is evidenc e to support it, the revie wing court on the entire evidence is left wit h the def inite and firm convic tion that a mistake has been com mi tt ed. '" Br own v . B ro wn , 4 Ve t.A pp . 3 07 , 3 09 (1 99 3) ; see a lso H ar de r v . B ro wn , 5 V e t.Ap p. 18 3, 189 ( 19 93 ); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 52 ( 1990) (e mphasis added) (q u o t i n g United States v. U.S. G ypsum Co. , 3 3 3 U. S

. 3 6 4 , 3 9 5 (1 9 4 8 ))

. Of co u rs e, i f t h e B o ar d 's

" ' a c c ount o f the e vid e nc e is pla us ibl e in lig ht of the re c or d vie we d in its e nti re ty , th e c ourt of a pp e a ls may no t r ever se i t. '" Gi lbe rt , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. at 5 2 (q u o t i n g An de rso n v . Ci ty of B esse me r Ci ty , 4 70 U. S. 56 4, 57 3- 74 (1 98 5) ). I n g e ne ra l, the e ff e c tiv e date fo r a

n a wa rd of be ne fi ts w ill be ba se d o n th e date of the c laim that resulted in that awa rd. See W illiams v. Princ ipi , 15 Vet.App. 189, 195 ( 2001) (e n banc) , a ff 'd , 3 10 F .3 d 1 37 4 ( F e d. Cir . 2 00 2) ; Lal on dev . W est , 12 Vet.App. 377, 380 ( 1999). The B oard must provide a n adequate statement of the reas o n s o r bases f or its decision. Gi lbe rt , 1 Ve t.A

pp . at 56 -5 7. An

a de qu a te state me nt of

re a so ns or

ba se s mu st a

na ly ze t he c re dib ili ty and probative value of

the evidenc e, a cc o u n t fo r the e vidence that it finds persuasive or unpersua sive, and provide rea sons for its reje ction of any materia l evidenc e favorable to the veter an. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Ga br ie lso n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 3 6, 39 -4 0 ( 19 94 ); Gi lbe rt , 1 Vet.App. at 56-57. A. Ef fe c tiv e Date fo r H od g kin ' s D ise a se T h e Bo ar d fo u n d t h at u n d er § 3

. 1 1 4 , t h e ear l i es t p o s s i b l e ef fe ct i v e da t e f

o rM r s
. B o n n er 's

c la im w a s N ov e mbe r 1 , 1 99 4. I t is un c on te ste d th a t Mr s. B onne r d id n ot app eal th e 19 76 RO decision t hat denied D I C. See Ap pe lla nt' s B r. 1- 11 ; se e als o R. at 1-744. Ther efor e, that dec ision beca me final. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( c ); se e als o P ers on v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 449, 450 ( 1993) (fa ilure to file timely

appea l of RO decision within one-y ear period re nders de cision final). Also, there is no dispute that Mrs. Bonne r sent to the RO a letter in Nove mber 1995 (R. at 309) that the RO construed a s an informa l claim for r eview of her pr eviously

denied DI C claim (R. at 312-13). Th e RO a nd

t h e B o ar d

r e v i e w e d

M r s
. B o n n e r ' s D I C c l a i m an d , u n d e r t h e l i b e r a l i z i n g l aw in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(e) (pre s u m p t i o n of ser vice c onnection for

Hodg kin's disea se), whic h was pr omu lg a te d in

F e br ua ry 19 94 , awarde d h e r D I C. R . at 31 2- 13 . A s st a te d a bo ve , 3 8 C. F .R. § 3.114(a) (3) pr ovides that, " [i ]f a claim is revie wed at the reque st of the claimant more than 1 y ear afte r t he effec tive date of the l aw or VA is sue, benefits may be author ized for a pe riod of 1 y ear prior8

to th e dat e of r ecei pt of s uch requ est ." See M cCay , 9 Vet.App. at 188. Mrs. Bonne r did not file her informal cla im until more than one y ear afte r the libera liz ing la

w that was e nacte d in Fe bruar y 1994, and, thus, the ea

rliest possible effe ctive date available to her for her DI C claim i s November 1, 1994, the date awa

rd e d. Ac c or din g ly , v ie wi ngthe reco rd in i ts e nti re ty , th e B oa

rd ha d a pla us ibl e ba sis for its dec ision in t his reg ard, a nd that decision t hus is not clea rly err oneous. F urther, that decision is supported by an ade quate state ment of the re asons or ba ses. See H anson and

Gi lbe rt , both su

pra . Mrs. Bonne r' s argument that under Nehmer I I she is entitled to an ef

fec tive date be fore November

1, 1994, is unavailing . I n M ay 1 989, the United States District Court for the Norther n Di str ic t of

Ca lif or nia (D istri c t Co ur

t) " vo ide d a ll b e ne fi t de c isi on s made un de r [3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .3 11 a(d) (19 86 )] ," Nehmer v. United St ates Veterans' Admin. , 7 12 F . Su pp . 1 40 4, 14 09 (N .D . Ca l. 1989) [hereina fter Ne hm e r I ], and therea fter he ld in Ne h mer II that Nehmer I ha d " vo ide d th os e d ec i s i o n s i nwh i ch t h e d i s ea s e o r c au s e o f d ea t h i s l at er fo u n d [ , ] u n d er v al i d Age n tOr an ge
r e gu l ati on (s) [ ,] to be s ervi ce con nect ed, " Nehmer I I , 32 F. Supp. 2d at 1183. The Ag ent Ora nge regulation at issue in the Nehmer proce eding s, 38 C.F.R. § 3.311a, became e ffe ctive on September 25, 1985. See 50 Fe d. Reg

. 34, 458 (Aug . 26, 1985). In W illiams v. Principi , this Court he ld t hat a c la ima nt w a s n ot en tit le d to an e arl ie r e ff e c tiv e date ba se d u

po n h e r 1 97 9 a

nd 19 85 c la ims be c a us e it w a s c le ar f

ro m Nehmer I and Nehmer I I that the only claims voided wer e those that we re denie d b et we en September 1985 a nd May 1989, the per iod when the invalidate d regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.311a(d) ) was in effe ct. W illiams , 15 Vet.App. at 195-97. I n this case , Mrs. Bonne r fi le d h e r o ri g ina l c la im i n 1 97 5, 10 y e ars be fo re th e pro mu lgat ion of the re g ulatio n at is su e in Nehmer was invalidated. Thus, Nehmer I and Nehmer I I wo u l d n o tb e ap p l i cab l e t o M rs
. Bo n n er 's claim, and she is theref

ore, not e ntitled to an e ffe ctive date ear lier than November 1, 1994, based upon the holdings in those c ases. See W illiams , su pra . B. Ef fec tive Date f

or non-Hodg kin's ly

mphoma Mrs. Bonne r fur

ther a rg ues that, because she asser ted t hat her husband di ed fr om "c ance r" in her 1975 DI C claim, that claim nece ssarily included a claim for non- Hodg kin's ly mphoma and that under 38 C.F .R. § 3

. 3 1 3 s h e i s elig ible for a n ear lier ef

fec tive date. The United States Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Ci rc u i t and thi s Court have he ld that VA has a duty to develop fully

and sy mpathetically

a vete ran' s claim to its opti mum and that VA is require d to determine a ll potential9

c la im s r a is e d b y th e e v id e n c e , a p p ly in g a ll r e le v an t la

w s an d r e g u lati o n s. Mo o d y v. Principi , 36 0 F .3 d 1 30 6 ( F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) ; Szemraj v. Principi , 357 F.3d 1370 ( Fe d. Cir. 2004); Bingham v. Principi , 1 8 V e t.A pp . 4 70 (2 00 4) ; see also Robe rson v. Principi , 251 F.3d 1378 ( Fe d. Cir . 2 00 1)

. Whe re su c h a re vie w " re a so na bly re ve a ls that the c la ima nt is se e kin g a

pa rt ic ula r b e ne fi t, the Boar d is re qu ir e d to a dju dic a te the iss ue of the c la ima

nt' s e nti tle me nt t o s uc h a be ne fi t or , if appropr iate, to re man d t h e i s s u e to t he RO for development a

nd adjudication of the issue." Su ttm an n v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 127, 132 ( 1993). When discussing the evidenc e nee ded to identify and support a c laim or application for bene fits, the Court, in Ro bin e tte v . B ro wn , held: That " evidenc e" means more than just infor mation to be filled in on the a pp lic a tio n f

or m, a nd that an app lic atio n in c lud e s th e fo rm plus evide nce in su

p p o r t o f the claim fl ow s n ot o nly fr om t he pla in meaningof t h e term but also from the VA Adjudica tion Procedure Manual, M21-1. Ro bin e tte , 8 Vet.App. 69, 78 ( 1995) (e mphasis added)

. M rs
. Bo n n er

l i s t e d "ca n ce r" o nh er

o ri gi n al DIC ap p l i ca t i o nas t h e c au s e o f M r. Bo n n er 's death ( R. at 276-79), and submitt ed a copy of his death c ertificate that expressly listed his cause of death a s "H odg kin's disea se" (R. at 281). Mrs. B on n er al so provided to the RO an a utopsy repor t that st a te d: " A b iop sy

of [the a bd omi na l ma ss] re ve a le d an un dif fe re nti a te d tumo r, wh ic h w a s f e lt to be most consistent with Hodgkin' s disease." R. at 289. Mrs. Bonne r does not ar g ue that Hodg kin's disea se and non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma are the same condition, a nd her asser

tion that the g ener ic label of

"c ance r" nece ssarily

included non-H odg kin's ly mphoma as a potential cause of her husband' s death is not supported by the evidenc e of r ecor d. See R. at 28 1, 28 8- 89 , 2 92 . A t th e tim e of t h e 1 9 76 RO adjudication, the e vidence established that Mrs. B onner' s claim was one for Hodg kin's disease as the cause of her husband' s death, and, there fore , we cannot conclude t hat the

ev i d en ce re as o n ab l y

ra i s edan y

cl ai m s fo r t h e c au s e o f d ea t h b y t y p es o f c an ce r o t h er

t h an Ho d gk i n 's disease. Compare Moody , Szemraj , Roberson , and Suttmann , a ll su pra . B e c a

us e it wa s r e a so na

ble for the RO to re ly

on the then-c ompetent medica l e vidence of rec ord to ide ntify the claim as one f or Hodg kin's disea se as the c ause of death, the Boa rd di d not err by concluding that the denial of her claim in 1976 was ba sed sol ely on the evidence that Hodg kin's disease caused Mr. Bonne r' s death. Thus , th e 20 01 B oa

rd c or re c tly de te rm ine d that Mrs . Bo nn e r wa s not en tit le d to an ef fe c tiv e date in10

1975 under the interpre tation of § 3.313 provided in G .C. Pre c. 5-1994 bec ause the previous denia l of her claim must have be en for a cla im for servic e conne ction fo r n on-Hodg kin's ly mphoma, not for a nother disea se. Mrs. Bonne r' s evidenc e of non- Hodg kin's ly mphoma as the ca

use of he r husband' s death wa s offe red to the RO on Nove mber 1, 1995. B eca use the 1976 RO dec ision deny ing he r cla im was not appea led and ha d become final, the RO in 1995 treated that evidenc e as ne w and mate rial evide nce to reope n her c laim. There afte r, the RO ag ain deter mined that the evidenc e of r ecor d reve aled Hodg kin's disea se as the c ause of Mr. Bonne r' s death. R. at 312-13. T he B oard did not disturb the RO' s finding as t o the cause of Mr. B onner' s death ( See R. at 1- 35), and, conseque ntly , the ca use-of

de a th fi ndingre ma ine d H od g kin ' s d ise a se . T he Court re vie ws su c h f

ind ing s und e r t

he " c le arl y
err oneous" standard of

revie w. See B rown, Harder, and Gi lbe rt , a ll su pra . A re view of the rec ord in i ts en tir e ty re ve a ls that the B oa rd ha d a pla

us ibl e ba sis to f

ind tha t th e c a us e of Mr . B onne r' s d e a th was Hodg kin's disea se. Id . Thus, that finding is not clearly err oneous. Id

. Th e B oa rd a lso c on sid e re d th e po ssi bil ity of no n- Ho dg kin ' s ly

mph oma a s th e a c tua l c a

us e
o f M r. Bo n n er 's d ea t h , b u tfo u n d t h at an y s u ch cl ai m w o u l d

b e acl ai m t o re o p en M rs
. Bo n n er 's ori gi n al claim on a new fa ctual basis as shown by new a nd materia l evidence submitt ed in 1995. R. at 16-18, 23-33. The Boa rd conclude d that even if she had pr evailed on that claim, Mrs. Bonne r still would not be entitled to an ef fec tive date e arlier than Novembe r 1, 1994. Id . U nd e r 3 8 U .S. C. § 5110(a) , "the eff

ective date of an award based on an original claim [or] a claim reope ned af ter fina l disallowance

. . . shall be fix ed in a ccor dance with the fac ts f ound, butshall not be earlier than the date of rece ipt of appli cation therefor ." See also 38 C.F .R. § 3 .4 00 (e mph a sis a dd e d) . B e c a us e Mr s. Bonne r pre sented ne w and mate rial evide nce to VA conce rning a potential chang e in dia g nosis of the ca use of he r husband' s death, that c laim must necessar ily be conside red a

reope ning, ba sed on

new a nd materia l evidence , of her previously

denied c laim. Acc ording ly , the ef fec tive date of

any
awa rd base d upon non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma cannot be earl i er t h an the date of rec eipt of that application or c laim, here , November 1, 1995, and the B oard did not er r in so holding. Pe rry v . W est , 12 Vet. App. 365 ( 1999).11 C. Equitable Relief Mrs. Bonne r' s plea for

equitable r elief in this matter is not unnoticed. This Court, howeve r, may not awar d equitable r elief, no matter how compe lling the f acts. Se e Mo

ffi tt v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 214, 225 ( 1997). On the othe r hand, the Sec reta ry , in appropriate ca ses, has that authority

. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 03 (a ); Zim ic k v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 45, 50-51 (1998) (explaining that Secre tary ' s authority

to gr ant equitable r elief unde r sec tion 503 is wholl y withi n Se c r e ta r y ' s d is c r e tion and C o u rt lacks jurisdiction to review exercise of

Secre tary ' s equity

discretion); 38 C.F.R. § 2.7 (2 00 4) . Sp e c if

ic a lly , s e c tio n 5 03 pr ov ide s: I f the Sec reta

ry deter mines t h at benef

its administ ere d by

the Depa rtment have not been pr ovided by rea son of admini strative er ror on the par

t of the F eder al Gover

nment or any

of its employ ees, the Secre tary may provide such relief on a ccount of such er ror a s the Se c re tary de te rm ine s equ ita

ble , inc lud ing the pa

y me nt of mon e y s to any pers on

wh om t he Se c re tary

de te rm ine s is e qu ita

bly e nti tle d to su c h mo ne y s. 38 U.S.C. § 503(a)

. There fore , Mrs. Bonne r may wish to pe tition the Secre tary for re l i ef u n d er section 503(a ), and the Secre tary will certa inly

g ive it ever

y consideration. See Zimick, su pra .

IV . C ON CL USI ON Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , th e Se pte mbe r 2 7, 20 01 , dec isi on of the B oa rd is AFF I RMED.

HA GE L , Jud g e , c on c ur

ri ng : Al tho ug h I

c on c ur in t he re su lt o f t

his op ini on , I

re sp e c tf ull y disag ree with the rea soning employ ed by the majority

in part I I I .B r eg ardingMrs. Bonne r' s claim for service connec tion for non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma under 38 C.F .R. § 3.313. I n my view, the Court need not rea ch the issue of whe ther Mrs. B onner' s claim for " canc er" in her 1975 DI C application included a c laim for non-H odg kin's ly mphoma beca

use in order

to preva il on her cla im for an e arlier eff ective date for D I C pursuant to § 3.313 the evidenc e must be at least in equipoise in support of her positi on that her husband died of non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma, and the Court cor rec tly deter mined, albeit without detailed explanation, that the VA f inding that h e d i ed of H odg kin's disea se is not "clear ly erro neo us ." Ante a t 10 ; see 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b).12

As set forth in the opinion above, the VAfinding reg ardingthe ca use of de ath is a question of fa ct, which the Court c annot over turn absent a deter

mination that it i s clea

rly err oneous. Ante at 10; 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4) ; s e e Tu rn e r v
. B r o wn, 6 Ve t

. Ap p
. 2 5 6, 258 (1994). In 1976, VA conclude d that Mr. B onner' s cause of death w as Hodg kin's disease. R. at 292. The re g ional office

rea djudicated the c laim i n 1 9 9 5 but did not alter its finding re g ardingthe ca use of de ath, and the Boa rd di d not disturb the reg ional office ' s finding. R. at 1-35, 312-313. Althoug h the majority does

n o tad dre s s t h e ev i d en ce o f re co rd p re s en t ed b y M rs
. Bo n n er

t h at h er h u s b an d d i edo f n o n -H o d gk i n 's ly mphoma, Ibelieve that the rec ord conta ins some evidence that Mr. B onner die d as a r esul t of non-Hodg kin's ly

mphoma but that it also contains evidence that he died f rom Hodg kin's disea se. Th e Na va l Me dic a l Ce nte r' s 197 5 au top sy re po rt state s tha t Mr. B onne r ha d an " a bd omi na l ma ss" that was most consistent with Hodg kin's disea se ly mphocy te depletion ty

pe. R. at 274. B ut that repor t also notes that "this i s a rare ty pe of H odg kins" makingup only 2% of a ll cases, a

nd it is found in pat ien ts "frequ ent ly pres ent wi th feve r and night sw eat s, and rarel y pres ent wi th a ma ss ." Id

. In the J une 19, 1995, National I nstitut es of He alth repor t, an oncolog ist concludes that "[i]m munohistochemical studies fa v o r t h e d i agn o s i s o f n o n -H o d gk i n 's l y mp h o m a" b u tal s o notes that Mr. B onner' s tumor contained cells which " simulat[ ed] Hodg kin's disea se." R. at 302-03. B oth of these diag noses ar e couc hed in terms of likelihood and pr obability

. Be cause the National Institut es of He alth repor

t notes that Mr. Bonne r' s tumor simul ated Hodg kin's disea se and only "f avors" the diag nosis of non-Hodg kin's ly mphoma, it was not clea

rly err oneous for

VA to find that this evidence is n ot i n e qu ipo ise wi th t he Na va l Me dic a l Ce nte r d ia g no sis of Hod gk in' s d ise a se . 3 8 U .S. C. § 5107(b). B e c a us e the B oa

rd did no t dis tur

b the VA fi nd ingthat Mr . B onne r d ie d o f H od g kin ' s d ise a se and bec ause this Court has not overturne d that deter mination, Mrs. Bonner ' s argument for a n ear lier eff ective da te for DI C unde r 38 C.F.R. § 3.313 is una vailing. Given that the e vidence of re cord doe s
no t e sta bli shthat Mr . B on ne r die d fr om non -H od g kin ' s ly mph oma , th e iss ue of

the br e a dth

of Mr s. B o n n e r ' s i n i t i a l c l a i m f

o r b e n e f i t s i s n o t , i n m y v i e w , p r o p e r l y b e f o r e u s a tt h i s t i m e
. C o n s e qu e n t l y, Ibelieve that it was unnece ssary for the ma

jority in par t I I I .B to re ach the question of whethe r a previously

denied a pplication for se rvice connec tion for "ca n ce r" m ay include a c laim for nonHodg kin's ly

mphoma pursuant to G.C. Prec. 5- 1994 and § 3.313. An te at 8-10.