UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS
No. 01-1322
T HEODO RE L. B I S S ON NE TTE , J R ., 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 Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided June 15, 2004 ) Kenneth M. Carpenter , of Topeka , Kansa s, was on the br ief for the appe llant.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R

. R a n d a l l C am pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy

Assistant Gener al Counsel; and Robert W . Legg , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore I VERS, STEI

NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : The appe llant, throug h coun s el , s ee k s review of an A pril 6, 2001, Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) de cision that dismis sed for lack of jurisdiction under the doctrine of re s judicata his c laim f or an ef fec tive date e arlier

than May

27, 1993, for a

n awa rd of De pa rtme nt of Ve te ra

ns Af fa ir s (V A) se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r a se izur e dis or de r; that cla im included the issue whe ther a Notice of Di s agr ee m ent (NO D) wa s filed as to a January 1968 VA reg ional office (RO) decision denying service connec tion f or a seizure disorder. Record (R.) at 1. The a ppellant and the Sec reta

ry eac h filed a brief, and t he appellant filed a reply brief. T his appea l is tim ely , an d the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) a nd 7266(a) . For

the

rea sons that follow, the Court will affirm the B oard de cision.

I. Re le va ntBac kgr ound Th e ve te ra

n s e rv e d h on or a

bly on a c tiv e du ty

in t he U. S. A rm y

fr om S e pte mbe r 1 96 4 unti l Novem b er 1 9 6 7 , i ncluding service in Vietnam. R. at 11. Upon his entry into service, he had no his tor y of e pil e ps y
. R. a t 15 -1 6. B e g inn ingin D e c e mbe r 1 96 5, his se rv ic e me dic a l r e c or ds ind ic a te2

that on sever al occa sions he experience d blackout spells a nd repor ted seizures. See , e.g. , R. at 24, 28, 49, 37, 40, 46, 52, 60. Two day s befor e the ve tera n' s dis ch ar ge, a VA examining phy sician completed a

phy sical prof

ile rec ord on the ve tera

n and listed as a de fec t the vete ran' s "[s]eiz ure disorder ( [e] pilepsy)" . R. at 52. I n November

1967, the veter an filed wi t h a VARO a claim for se rvice connec tion for epilepsy , which, he stat ed , h ad " [s] tarted dur ing the middle of 1966 while in Vietnam." R. at 90. I n J anuar y 1968, the VARO sent a

letter to the ve tera

n stating that beca

use he had failed to re port fo r a sc he du le d e xami natio n, the RO ha d d e nie d h is c la im; the le tte r a lso state d:

No furthe r a ct ion will be taken unless y ou inform us of y our willingness to repor

t for ex amination by signing the s tatement below and re turning this letter to us. Upon re ceipt of suc h notification, an examination will be re [] s ch ed u l ed and y our cla im will be rec onsidered w hen the e x amination is complete.
R. at 93. On J anuar

y 23, 1968, the RO rec eived f rom the vete ran a

letter, whic h stated: " Irec eived y our letter toda

y telling me my

claim has be en denie d. Irea lly don' t think y ou have the rig ht to do

so ." R. at 95 . T he ve te ra n th e n e xpla ine d w hy

he did no t r e po rt

fo r e xami natio ns a nd aske d: " So Sir if it is possible c ould it be arr ang e[d] for me to r eopen my claim [and] take the phy s i ca l ex am here at For

t Ril ey ." R. at 96. Also in J anuar y 1968, the RO replied that there w ere no fac iliti es at F or t Ril e y fo r a n e xami natio n a nd inf or me d the ve te ra

n that he sh ou ld n oti fy

the RO if he wa s a ble to report " to the VA for

an examination at some future date" (R. at 99); i n J u l y 1 9 6 8, the veter an submitt ed a statement t hat he was "willing to repor t for e x amination for c ompensation purposes at any time" ( R. at 101)

. I n a September 1968 V A examination report, the e x amining phy sician during

a "spe cia l neu rol ogic ex ami nat io n" reco rded as a di agnos is "[ c] on vu ls iv e di so rder , grand mal ty pe", and the ex amining phy sician for the " g ener al medica l examination" rec orded that "[d]i ag noses ar e pe nd ingla

bo rator y wo rk " a nd

lis ted a s h is d ia g no sis " [ h ] ist or y of convulsive disorder , g rand ma l ty pe" . R. at 106-07 (emphasis added)

. I n Dec ember 1968, the R O s ent t o the veteran a letter stating that he had been scheduled for "a period of hospital observation and examination to determine the extent of [ his] disability " but because he did not repor t for that ex amination, the RO would " tak[e] no further

action i n [ his] claim . . . until such time [ as he w as] willi ng to report f or the hospital observation and examination." R. at 114.3

I n May 1971, th e v eteran filed, throug h a re prese ntative, " an informa l claim for

rec onsideration of c ompensation bene fits." R. at 116. A pa rtially illegible c opy

of a VA hospital

su mma ry re ve a ls that th e ve te ra n w a s a dmi tte d f

or fo ur da y s f or ob ser vation

a nd te sts in Aug ust 1971, but that he had left the hospital a ppare ntly b ef o re the VA phy sicians finished a dia g no sis ; it

a lso a pp e a rs fr om t

he re c or d th a t he state d th a t he wo uld pr e fe r t o und e rg o f ur the r t e sts

as an outpatient so that he could return to his business at his home . R. at 119. I n October 1971, the RO sent to the veter an a le tt er (1 ) s t at i ng that he had " left the hospital bef ore [his] tests and

e va luatio ns c ou ld be c omp e te d in Au g us t 19 71 " , (2 ) a dv isi ng him that in or de r fo r the RO to p ro c e ss his application, he ne eded to unde rg o "a n obs er v at i o n and eva luation examination", and (3) r equesting that he respond to them within 60 day s reg ardingwhether he wa s "r eady , willing, and able to re port and re main in the hospital until such examination ca n be per formed." R. at 122. There is no evidence in the rec ord that the a ppellant eve r re sponded to this letter. See R. at 1-398. I n May 1993, the veter an filed, through a re p re s entative, a n "inf ormal" claim for se rvice

connec tion for his seizure disorder (R. at 124); he filed a formal claim i n May 1994 (R. at 127-28). I n October

19 9 4 , the RO, inter alia, g rante d service connec tion for his "se izure disorder" and

awa rded a rating of 80% f

or th at d i s ab i l i t y , eff

ective f rom May 27, 1993, the date of

his informal claim. R. at 195-97. The veter an submitted to the RO a " Request for Re adjudication" , stating that the RO e r

r o n e o u s l y h a d f

a i l e d t o a d

j u d i c a t e h i s c l a i m i n 1 9 6 7 a n d t h at , t h u s , t h a t c l a i m wa s st ill pe n d in g
. R. a t 2 0 5

- 0 6

. T h e RO r e s p o n d e d in D e c e mb e r 1 9 9 4 th at, in Ja n u a r y 1 9 6 8 , it had admin is tr a

ti v ely denied his Nove mber 1967 c laim beca use he ha d failed to re port for a n examination. R. at 209. On appeal t o the Board for an earlier eff ective date (EED ) for

his 80% seizure-disorde r rating (R. at 230 (Substantive Appea l), 274 (Certification of Appea l), 282-83 (w ritten submission in support of appe al re questing eff ective date as of date of dischar g e), the Boa rd in Novembe r 1996 denied a n eff ective da te bef ore Ma y 27, 1993, beca

use it determined that the veter an had aba ndoned his November 1967 a

nd October

197 1 claims by

his failure to re port for e x aminations, within the one-y ear period following the RO' s reque sts, and that there wa s thus no prior claim upon which he could be awa

rded an EED (R. at 292-95). T he vete ran the n appea led to this Court; in a Marc h 1998 single -judg e memora

ndu m decision, the Court, inter a lia, held as to the Nove mber 1967 a nd May 19 71 se izur e -d iso rd e r c la ims that (1 ) purs ua nt to 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 58 (a ) t he re wa s " a

pla us ibl e4

basis for the B oard' s finding that the appellant ha d abandone d those ea rlier c laims by

not reporting for his examinations" and ( 2) there was " a plausible ba sis for t h e Board' s conclusion that the appellant wa s not entitled to an eff ective date ea

rlier than Ma

y 27, 1993," for his servic e-c onnecte d seizure disorder

. Bi

sso nn e tte v . W

est , No

. 9 6 -1 7 5 1 , 1 998 WL 136888, at *4 (Ve t. App. Mar. 20, 1998) ( Bissonnette I

). I n Se pte mbe r 1 99 8, the ve te ra n fi le d, int e r a lia , wi th the RO a " c la im that the [RO] f a ile d to

s u b m i t a S t a t e m e n t o f

t h e C a s e [ ( S O C ) a s ] t o h i s [ N O D ] " f i l e d i n J a n u a r y 1 9 6 8

. R

. a t3 0 9

- 1 0

. In a June 1999 SOC, t he RO stated that no timely NOD was filed as to the J anuar y 1968 letter de ny ing the veter an' s orig inal claim for service connec tion. R. at 334-35. Specific ally , the RO deter mined: Th e ve te ra

n' s le tte r, re c e ived J anu a ry 23 , 1 96 8, did

e xpre ss s ome disag ree ment wi t h the VA de cision to deny his claim. The disag ree ment was spec ific as to the require ment for a n examination. This require ment was explained to the ve tera n and he a g ree d to report for the e x amination. The portion of t he decision with [si c] which the ve te ra n q ue sti on e d w a s a dd

re sse d a nd the ve te ran was a

pp a re ntl y satisfied as he ag ree d to repor t for the VA examination. Although the letter did express some disag re em en t wi th the prior dec ision, it can not be re ason abl[y ] construed, based on the letter a nd subsequent events, that the ve tera

n desired a

ppellate r eview. R. at 335. Following the veter an' s Aug ust 1999 submissi on of a Substantive Appe al (R. at 338-55) , the RO issued another decision i n September 1999; the R O found that the vetera n' s claim " for se rvice

connec tion for a se izure disorder, initially rec eived [on November

9, 1967,] and reopene d [on] J uly 16, 1968, is considere d to be aba ndoned" beca

use he f ailed to re port for the require d examination withi n one y ear afte r notice of

the re quest (R. at 357-58) . I n making that deter mination, the RO stated that any

argument that the veter an' s J anuar y 1968 letter c onstitut ed a c laim to r eopen that m u s t n o w b e adjudicated is moot because "the veter an' s claim was c onsidered by VA to be formally reope ned by

his written statement, re ceive d in J uly of 1968, whe n he re ported he was willing to re port for V A examination." R. at 358. I n Marc h 2000, afte r submitt ing to the Boa rd a memo of additional argument in support of his claim (R. at 371-79), the veter an also submitted, inter alia, to the RO a "f ormal cla im" re g arding the RO' s "f

ailure to a djudicate a

claim for se rvice [-] connec ted disability " f r o m November

1967 (R. at 38 2- 85 ). A f

e w d a y s late r, a lso in M a rc h 2 00 0, the a pp e lla nt the n s ub mit te d to the RO a do c ume nt,5

e n t i t l e d " N o t i c e o f D i s a g r e e m e n t " , w h i c h a s s e rt e d t h a t , a l t h o u g h t h e R O c o n c e de d in its September 1999 de cision that his J uly 1968 letter served as a claim to reope n his abandone d 1967 claim, the RO neve r issued a " [d] ecision with an a ppropriate notice of his appellate rig hts" as to that J uly 1968 claim, and it thus remained ope n. R. at 388-91. I n the B oard de cision here on appea l, the B oa rd su mma ri zed a s f oll ow s th e ve te ra

n' s f our a rg ume nts in s up po rt

of his a sse rt ion

that hi s November

1967 claim was unadjudicate d: (1) The veter an' s J anuar y 1968 letter to the RO wa s an NO D a nd th e RO ne ve r i ssu e d a n SO C in re sp on se ; ( 2) the RO fa ile d to inf or m th e ve te ra

n in its Janu a ry 19 68 le tte r d e nyinghis se rv ic e -c on ne c tio n c la im that he ha d on e y e a r to re po rt fo r the e xam; (3 ) t he RO e rr on e ou sly

de nie d th e ve te ra

n' s c la im i n Jan

ua ry 19 68 , ra the r tha

n s imp ly " ' la be lin g it as pot entially abandone d' "; and (4) the RO' s J anuar y 1968 letter de ny ing his c laim did not advise the

ve te ra n o f h is a pp e llate ri g hts

. R. at 6. Th e B oa rd a lso no te d th a t th e ve te ra n h a d a sse rt e d th a t hi s September 1968 ex amination constituted an informa l claim to reope n. Ib id

. Th e B oa rd de c lin e d to

rea ch those a

rg uments beca

use it determined that they wer e "f o re cl o s ed under the doctrine of res jud ic ata " ; th e B oa

rd re a so ne d: I n it s M a r c h 1 9 9 8 d e c is io n , th e Co u rt f o u n d th a t t h e c la im [for ] se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r a

se izur e dis or de r w a s a dju dic a te d b y the RO i n J an u ary 1 9 6 8 , an d t h at t h e cl ai m wa s d en i edb as edo n t h e v et er an 's fa ilure to r e po rt

fo r s c he du le d V A e xami natio ns . T he Co ur t a lso found that the vet er an 's claim for e ntitlement to service c onnection fo r a se izur e dis or de r wa s a ba nd on e d ba se d on his re pe a te d f a ilure to repor t for sche duled examinations. . . .
Acc ording ly , the Court decision date d in March 1998[] found that the veter an 's cl aim [for] s ervic e conne ction rec eived in 1967 wa s adjudicate d and aba

ndoned. In so finding , the arg ument . . . that the veter an' s claim . . . was ne ver f inally adjudicate d is barre d by the doctrine of re

s ju dic ata . H e nc e , th e B oa rd is w ith ou t juri sd ic tio n to find otherwise

.
R. at 6- 7 (citing 38 U.S.C. § 7104 and Morris v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 260 (1991)) . The B oard the n dismiss ed the ve tera

n' s claim for a

n E E D, t o include the issue whe ther a n NOD a s to the J anuar y 1968 RO decision was timely filed. R. at 7.6 II. Contentions on Appeal As a pr e lim in ary mat ter , th e Court no te s th a t, a s th e a

pp e lla nt c on c e de s, he e xpre ssl y wi thd re w ( in h is Aug us t 19 99 Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l ( R. at 34 1) ) h is c la im of c le a r a nd un mis taka

ble

err or (CUE) in the J anuar y 1968 RO decisi o n d en y i n g his origina l claim for se rvice connec tion. Dec . 2002 Response at 3-5 (n o t i n g "e rror " by counsel for

appellant a

nd apolog izi ng for

c ha ra c te ri zing , in

re sp on se to S e c re tary ' s mo tio n to dis mis s, c la im a s CU E c la im) ; se e Bi sso nn e tte v. Principi , No. 01-1322, 2002 W L31513330, at *2 (Ve t. App. Nov. 12, 2002) (or dering , inter alia,

a pp e lla nt t o s ho w c a

us e wh y B oa rd de c isi on c on c lud ingthat it

ha d n o ju ri sd ic tio n ove r C UE c la im should not be aff

irmed). Thus, the now -withdraw n CUE claim is not part of the instant appe al. I n his principal brief, the appe llant first argues that the B oard inc orre ctly applied the doc trine of re s judicata. B rief ( Br .) 7-11. He asser ts that the "the ory of entitlement to an [EED]" bef ore the Court in March 1998 wa s solely that he had not a

bandoned his claim, and that the Court' s holding was only that "the orig inal claim of Nove mber 1967 was fi nal due to the aba ndonm e nt of that c la im by the [a]p pe lla

nt. " B r. a t 8- 9. On that bas is, the a pp e lla nt co nc lud e s tha t re s judi c a ta a pp lie s o nly to the leg al deter

mination reg ardingabandonme n t b u t not to the question of law whe ther the

a pp e lla nt' s Jan ua ry 19 68 le tte r w a s an N OD . B r. at 9. The a pp e lla nt c ite s th e fo ur

e le me nts i d en t i fi ed in Ne v es v . B ro wn , 6 V e t. A p p
. 1 7 7 , 1 7 9 ( 1 9 9 3 ) , th a t r e n d e r a c la im b a r r e d u n der r es judicata a nd conce des that all require ments are met except that the instant case does not involve the

same c laim as the first; instead, he contends that whether his J anuar y 1968 letter is an NOD " does not invol ve t h e s am e cl ai m
. " Br

. at 1 0 -1 1 (c i t i n g Andre v. Principi , 301 F.3d 1354 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), for pr oposition t hat " the [a]ppellant can pre sent alterna tive theories of

CUE at any

time under 38 U.S.C. § 5109A"). H aving asser ted that his curr ent claim is not prec lu d ed o n t h e basis of re s judicata, the appellant then argues (1) that his J anuar y 1968 letter was, in fac t, an NOD, a s to which the RO issued no SOC (Br . at 11-15) a nd (2) that the B VA violated 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) by not

rema nding the claims to the RO for the issuance of an SOC in response to his Marc h 2000 NOD a s to the September 1999 RO de cision (B r. at 15-18)

. I n response , t h e S ec reta ry counter s that the April 2001 B VA dec ision dism issing the appe l l an t 's claim " ref

lected a solid apprec iation of the fa cts and a pplicable law

and should be af fi rm ed

. " Br

. at 5 (c i t i n g Tril le s v . W est , 13 Ve t.A

pp
. 31 4, 32 1 ( 20 00 ) ( e n b a nc )) . With r e sp e c t to7

res judicata, the Secr etar

y criticizes the appe llant's c itation to An dr e , su pr a , a nd a rgue s th a t th a t c a se is disti ng uishable fr om the inst an t ca s e b eca use (1) An dr e involved a CUE cla im; (2) An dr e de a lt wi th wh e the r the iss ue the re ha d b e e n a dju dic a te d b y the B oa rd , whe re a s th e ins tant c a se de a ls w ith whether the claim has a lrea dy

been de cided by

this Court, a hi gh er t ri b u nal; and (3) in An dr e , the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit held that ea ch spec ific alleg ation of C UE i s a new
c la im, wh e re a s h e re the app ell ant is r a isi ng" the same c la im, a lbe it w itha dif fe re nt t wi st t o h is

a lr e a dy a dju dic a te d a

rgume nt a s to the fi na lity of the 19 68 RO de c isi on , us inge vid e nc e pr e vio us ly

c on sid e re d b y

the Court in 1 99 8. " B r. a t 8. Th e Se c re tary a lso a sse rt s th a t th e a pp e lla nt " ha d a fa ir opportunity

to raise this specific argument to the Board and Court in his appeal for an [EED] at [ the t i m e o f h i s p ri o r ap p ea l ] " t h at re s u l t edi n t h e C o u rt 's M ar ch 1 9 9 8 d ec i s i o n
. Br

. at 9 (c i t i n g Mc Do we ll

v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t

. Ap p
. 4 0 1 , 4 0 5 (1 9 9 3 ))

. T h e S ec re t ary co n t en d s t h at wh et h er

t h e v et er an 's J anuar y 1968 letter wa s an NOD is preclude d as re s judicata in lig ht of th e C ourt' s prior ruling

re g a rd ingthe fi na lity

of the Janu a ry

19 68 RO de c isi on , a

nd he thu s d e c lin e s to a dd

re ss th e me ri ts of that ar g ument. Br . at 9-10. Reg arding the appe llant's a rg ument that the B oard f

ailed to re quire the RO to issue an SOC as to the appe llant 's Marc h 2000 NOD, the Sec reta ry asser ts that the appellant' s "' claim' for a djudication of an infor mal claim in 1999 was not a separate claim, but rathe r
a s ep ar at e t h eo ry

o f e n t i t l em en tt o an [ E E D]

. " Br

. at 1 1 (c i t i n g An dr e , 301 F.3d at 1361). I n his reply brief, the appellant ag ree s with the S ecr etar y that his curr ent claim for an EED is the same c lai

m as t he claim denied by the Board in November 1996, but argues t hat the " theory of entitlement" to the EED cla im he is curre ntly p u rs u i ng is differe nt from the prior the ory ; he contests the S ec retary ' s interpre tation of An dr e , su pr a , a c a se that he c la ims su pp or ts h is interpre tation and entitles him to an adjudication on the c urre n t t h eo ry . Reply at 2-5. As to the Secre tary ' s assertion that the appellant ha d a prior oppor tunity to raise this argument to the Boa rd and the C ourt, the appellant states t hat "[t ]here does not ex ist any compulsory

joinder of all theories of entitlement . . . in VA law" and that "[t]here is no bar to a claimant, afte r being unsucce ssful in one the or y , to the re a ft e r p re se nt t o th e Se c re tary a n a lte rn a tiv e the or

y of no n[]f ina lity , n ot p re vio us ly prese nted and c onsidered by the Secr etar

y ." Re ply at 5-6. The appellant ha s also filed a notice of supplemental authority

notify ing the Court of a c ase de cided by the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the8

Ninth Circuit, Litt lejohn v. United States , 3 21 F .3 d 9 15 (9 th C ir . 2 00 3) , a ft e r b ri e fi ngwa s c omp le te here

.

III . A nal ys is Res judicata is a

judicially cre ated doc trine that dete rmines the ef fec t of prior judg ments on parties in subseque nt adjudications. G ENE R. S HREVE & P ET ER RAVEN -H ANSEN , U NDE R S TANDI NG C I V I L P ROCE D U RE § 106 (2d ed. 199 4 ). T he doctr ine has long included two subdoctrine s, one of whi ch w as hi st ori cal ly cal led "res ju di cat a" a nd mo re recen tl y has been ter med "clai m p recl us io n", and the other

which wa s historically

called "c ollatera l estoppel" and more rec ently has bee n termed "issue pr eclusion" ; res judicata deals with " how a judgment ca n fore close subseque nt opportunities to bring a cla im or cause of ac tion" and c ollatera l estoppel dea ls with "how a judgme nt can pr event rel it igat io n o f an i ss ue o f fact or l aw. " Ib id .; se e als o S tr o tt v
. D e rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 114, 117 (1991). In Neve

s , th is C ourt

ou tli ne d th e fo ur

re qu isi te e le me nts fo r a

c la im t o b e ba

rr e d b y c la im pr e c lus ion : (1 ) [T ]he Court ' s p ri or de c isi on mus t be a

va lid a nd fi na l ju dg me nt; (2) t h e latter suit mus t involve the same c laim or ca use of a ction lit ig a te d i n th e fi rs t su it; (3 ) t he de c isi on

in t he or ig ina l a c tio n mu st have be e n on the me ri ts; a nd (4 ) the same pa rt ie s mu st b e inv olv e d in bo th c a se s. Neve s , su pr a . T h e p a rti e s e a c h a s s e rt th a t e le me n ts ( 1 ) , ( 3 ) , a n d ( 4 ) a r e met i n t h e i nstant case , and the Court ag ree s. Ib id

. S p e c i f i c a l l y, Bissonnette I

, su pr a , was a

valid and fina l judgment involving Mr. Bissonnette a

nd the S ecr etar

y , and it was render ed "on t he merits" – that is, "on the substance of the claim adva

nced" , beca

use the EED claim was de nied, Semtek Int'l, Inc. v. Lockhe ed Martin Corp. , 5 3 1 U. S

. 4 9 7 , 5 0 1 -0 2 (2 0 0 1 ) ( qu o t i n g R E S TA TE ME NT (S EC OND ) O F J U D G M EN T S § 19, cmt. a (1980) ),

a nd statin g that in

e ve ry jur isd ic tio n " on

the me ri ts" de no te s d e c isi on " that a c tua lly

' pa sse s d ir e c tly

on the su bs tanc e of

[a p a rt ic ula

r] c la im' " a nd

is " the me a nin g int e nd e d in t ho se many

state me nts to the ef fec t that a judg ment ' on the m erits' trig g ers the doctrine of res judicata or c laim prec lusion"). See Ne ves , su

pr a . The pa

rties appe ar to disag ree , howeve r, over whether the instant appea l

" inv olv e [s] the same c la im" a s Bissonnette I ; the appellant a sserts both (1) that whe ther his J anuar y9

1968 letter is an NO D " does not invol ve the same c laim" a s did the Marc h 19 9 8 d ec i s i o n (Br. at 10 -1 1) a nd

(2 ) t hat th e Se c re tary ' s " a sse rt ion tha t th e se c la ims a re the same
. . . is c or re c t [bu t th a t] it i s incorre ct that the theory of entitlement to an [EED] is t he same theory previously

made [sic] by the [a]p pe lla

nt" (R e ply

a t 2) . We re

je c t th e a pp e lla nt' s f ir st a rgume nt b e c a

us e bo th t he c la im befor e the Court in Marc h 1998 and the c laim now on appea l w ere for an "e ffe ctive date ear lier than May 27 , 1 99 3, for

th e grant of s ervi ce con nect io n fo r a seiz ure d is ord er." Com pa re Bi sso nn e tte I

, 2002 WL 31513330, at *1, and R. at 286, with R. at 1. Moreove r, the a ppellant' s relianc e on An dr e fo r his a sse rt ion is not

pe rs ua siv e ; Andre state d that " e a c h ' sp e c if ic ' a sse rt ion of CU E c on sti tut e s a [separate ] claim", and, a s the Secre tary contends, now tha t t h e ap p el lant has withdraw n his CUE claim, that statement ha s n o b earing on the instant appea l. An dr e , 301 F. 3d at 1361 (stating that "[o]ur decision turns on the fa ct that Mr. Andr e' s case involves CUE claims")

. As to the appe llant's se cond ar g ument, he asse rts that he is not barr ed " in VA law" from prese nting a

n additional theory

with respec t to a previously l i tigated claim. Reply at 5-6. That contention is directly

ref uted by this Court' s case law; spec ifically , in Mc Do we ll , this Court held that claim pre clusion applies to "f urther claims by the parties or their privies based on the same c ause of

ac t i o n , i n cluding the issues ac tually litigated a

nd deter mined in that suit, a s we ll a s th o s ewhi ch might hav e be e n lit

iga te d o r a dju dic ate d th e re in ." Mc Do we ll , 5 Vet.App. at 405 (empha sis added) (c i t i n g Lawl or v . Nat'l Sc re e n S e rv . Co rp ., 34 9 U. S. 32 2, 32 5- 26 (1 95 5) ); s e e a ls o F e d e r a te d D e p 't Sto re s, In c . v . M

oit ie , 452 U.S. 394, 398 (1981) (" [a] final judg ment on the merits of a n action prec ludes the parties or t heir privies from relitigating issues that were or could have bee n ra ise d in that actio n" (e mph a sis a dd e d) ); Comm'r v. Sunnen , 3 33 U. S. 5 91 (1 94 8) ; cf. Smith ( Barbara) v. Derwinski , 1 Ve t

. Ap p
. 2 6 7 , 2 7 7 (1 9 9 1 ) ( qu o t i n g W illiams v. Nort h Carolina , 325 U.S. 226, 233-34 (1 94 5 ) , f o r p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t r e s j u d i c a t a i n c l u d e s i s s u e s i n a c l a i m t h a t c l a i m a n t " p e r m i t t e d

. . . to pass without objection") . The Court also stated in Ha mi lto n ( Sta nle y ) v . B ro wn : "T he re maining que stion is simply whether responde nts having failed to raise the question in the proce eding to which they wer e par ties and in w hich they could have r aised it and ha d it finally deter mined, wer e privileg ed to re main q u i et an d raise it in a subseque nt suit. S uch a view is contra

ry to the well-settled pr inciple that res judicata may be ple a de d as a ba

r, no t on ly

a s r e sp e c ts m a tte rs a c tua lly pr e se nte d to sustain or defe at the rig ht a sserted in the ear lier proc eeding , ' but als o10 as respec ts any oth er available mat ter which m ight h ave be en pr ese nte d to tha t e nd

'."
Hamilton , 4 Vet.App. 528, 539 ( 1993) (e n banc) (empha sis added in Hamilton ) ( qu o t i n g Chicot County Drainage Dist. v. Baxte r State Bank , 308 U.S. 371, 378 (1940)). I n ess e nc e , the re s judi c a ta pr e c e de nt en sure s tha t a litig a nt may have his or he r d a y in C ourt , but not two or three. T he appe llant previously had his day

in this Court to argue that he is entitl ed to a n e ff e c tiv e date e a rl ie r t

ha n M a y 27 , 1 99 3; h is o ri g ina l E ED c la im w a s d e nie d by the B oa rd in November

1996 in the context of the Boa rd' s finding that he had a

bandoned No vember

1967 and May 1971 claims by failing to report f or examination (R. at 292-95), a nd he ca nnot now asser

t an EE D b a se d o n a

c on te nti on

that he fil e d an NO D as to the RO ' s den ia l of tha t N ov e mbe r 1 96 7 c la im. See F ederate d Dep't Stores , Mc Do we ll , and

Hamilton , a ll su

pr a ; c f. Cos tan tin o v . W

est, 12 Vet.App. 517, 521 (1999) ( ref

using to he ar a

rg uments ra i s ed fo r first time in appellant' s reply brief) ; He nd e rso n v . W

est, 12 Ve t.A

pp . 1 1, 18 -1 9 ( 19 98 ) ( same ); Car bin o v . G ob e r, 10 Vet.App. 507, 511 (1997) ( same), aff'

d, 168 F.3d 32, 34 (F ed. C ir.1999) (stating that "c og ent re asons for not pe rmitting an appe ll an t to raise issues or a rg uments in a reply

brief" include " unfairne ss to the appellee who does not have an opportunity to r espond and the adde d burden on the court that a contra ry prac tice

wo uld e nta il" ). Th e la tte r a

rgume nt s ho uld

have be e n r a ise d in the pr ior lit ig a tio n, a nd

the Court , having hear d and dec ided that claim, ca nnot reope n its doors to hear a n argumen t t h at could have be e n r a ise d th e fi rs t ti me . A g a in, the a pp e lla nt' s An dr e a rgume nts a re un a va ili ngin thi s r e g a rd bo th (1) be cause Andre dealt with C UE cla ims, which require specific pleading s by a cla imant, see Fugo

v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 40, 44 (1993), and (2) beca use the instant ca se involves the pre clusive ef fec t of a pr ior jud ic ia l de c isi on , w he re a s An dr e involved specific issues not raised be fore the depa rtment in an under ly ing CUE a djudication. Se e An dr e , su pr a . Finally , beca

use the a ppellant had a

"' full and fair oppor

tunity ' " to litigate his claim, there are no due-pr oce s s co ncer ns that would rende r ina pp lic a ble re s jud ic a ta to the ins tant c la im . Kremer v . Chem. Const. Corp. , 456 U.S. 461, 480-81 (1982) ( citations omitt ed). The Court has consider ed the appellant' s supplemental notice w ith reg ard to Litt lejohn , su

pr a , a nd do e s n ot f ind that th a t c a se pe rs ua siv e ly un de rc uts the re s-

jud ic a ta a uth or ity addre ssed above

.11 IV. Conclusion On the basis of t he above analy sis, the record on appea l, and the parties' pleading s, the Court holds that the appellant ha s not demonstrated that the Board committ ed error in dismiss ing ba sed on res judicata the appe llant's c laim for an E ED for the awa rd of se rvice connec tio n for his seizure disorder. A ccor dingly , the April 6, 2001, B oard de cision is affirme d. AFF I RMED.