THIS VERSION INCLUDES AN ERRATA DATED SEPTEMBER 20, 2000-e
UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 98-354
R I C HAR D D. S I MMONS , A PP EL L ANT

V
. T OGO D. W EST , J R ., 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 On Reconsider ation
(De cided August 30, 2000 )
Mark R. Lippman , o f L a

Jolla , Ca lif

or nia , a nd Ke nn e th M . Ca

rp e nte r o f T op e ka , K ans a s, we re on the ple a din g s f

or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , Ass ist ant G e ne ra l Co un se l; Thomas A. Mc Lau gh lin , Special Assistant to the Gene ral Counsel; and C r i s t i n e D

. Sensem an , a ll o f

Wa s h in g ton, D.C., were on the pleading s for the a ppellee.
Be fore HOL DAWAY, STEI NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. STEI NB ERG, Judge : T he appellant, veter an Richard D. Simm ons, appea ls through c ounsel

a Janu ary 19 98 B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls ( B oa

rd or B VA ) de c isi on that det e rm ine d th a t an Apr il 1977 decision by

a De partment of Veter ans Affairs (VA) reg ional office (RO), that ha d denied VA service connec tion f

or arthritis and a nervous disorder, did not contain clea r and unmistakable err or (CUE). Rec ord (R.) at 3. The appe llant has filed a br ief, a nd the Secr etar

y h as filed a motion for single -judg e af

firmanc e; bot h parties have filed suppleme ntal memoranda pursuant to Court order

. On May 1, 2000, the app el l an t fi l ed, pursua nt to Rul e 28(g ) of this Court' s Rules of Practice and Procedur e, a No tice of Supplementa ry Authority

as to the Court' s opinion in Te tro v . W est , 13 Ve t.A pp . 4 04 (2 00 0) . T his a

pp e a l is tim e ly , a

nd the Court ha s jur isd ic tio n purs ua nt t o 3 8 U .S. C.2

§§ 7252(a) and 7266(a ). On M ay 12, 2000, the panel issued an opini on in this appea l that discussed in part the Court' s opinion in Te tro , supra. On J u l y 3 , 2 0 0 0, the appe llant filed a motion for

re c on sid e ratio n o f t

he pa ne l' s o pin ion

in t he ins ta nt c a se . In li ght of subse qu e nt d e ve lop me nts in Te tro , in wh ic h a mot ion fo r re c on sid e ratio n is pe nd ing , the pa ne l ha s de c ide d, su a sp on te , to re vis e its prior opinion, although the r esult remains the same. Acc ord i n gl y , the appe llant's motion for

rec onsideration wil l be denie d as moot. For the rea sons that follow, the Court will gra nt the Secre tary ' s motion i n part a nd deny it in part and af

firm the B oard de cision.

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

n s e rv e d in

the U. S. N a vy

fr om No ve mbe r 19 68 to Janu ary 19 70 . R. a t 14 . H is service medical r ecor ds (SMRs) indicated that he ha d suffe red f rom depre ssion (R. at 23, 2 7 ) but

c on ta ine d n o in dic a tio n o f i n- se rv ic e art hr iti s ( see R. at 17 -3 2) . AF e br ua ry 19 72 pr ivate ho sp ita lizatio n d isch arg e re po rt no te d th a t th e ve te ra

n h a d c omp la ine d o f " art

hr iti s o f l arg e joi nts si n c e 1 2 / 2 0 / 7 1 "; h e w a s d i a gn o s e d a s h a v i n g " [ p ] o l y art h r i t i s , p r o b a b l y r h e u m a t o i d , s e r o [

- ] n e ga t iv e". R. at 34. I n September 1972, he filed with the VARO an a pplication for VAcompensation or pension based on a

rthritis. R. at 38-42. He submitted a private medica l r ecor d, dated September 1972, that descr ibed treatment on " Dec ember 20, 1971, [for] painful swelling . . . nea r the rig ht sacro iliac [si c] joint". R. at 45. I n November 1972, a VA e x amining phy sician d i agn o s ed t h e vete ran a s having "[p]oly arthritis, ca

use undete rmined" . R. at 62. T h e RO in Dece mber 1972 a war ded the ve tera

n
non-ser vice- connec ted pension bene fits for his arthr itis, effec tive Dec ember 1971. R. at 67-68. I n Jun e 19 74 , th e ve te ra

n f ile d a c la im f or VA se rv ic e c on ne c tio n fo r rh e umatoi d a rt hr iti s, and asse rted that his ar

thritis was a " direc t result of his mental depr ession in service ". R. at 80. He submitt ed in J uly

1974, inter alia, a

n April 1974 private hospitaliz ation summary , which diag nosed "[r]heuma to id

arthr it is , s e r o - n e g a ti v e "

. R. a t 8 6

. A nA u g u s t 1 9 7 4 V A p s y c h iatr ic e xa mi n a tion repor t noted the veter an' s acc ount tha t he had "de veloped rheumatoid a rthritis in Dec ember

1971" and diag nosed him as having "[a]nx iety rea ction with de pressive features, moderate only , seconda ry to a rt hr iti s con dit ion "

. R. at 12 3. Th e RO in S e pte mbe r 1 97 4 d e nie d th e ve te ra n' s " re op e ne d c la im" beca use his arthritis and a

nx iety rea ction "w ere not incurre d in or ag g ravat ed by his period of3

milit ary [service,] nor [was] i t show n that he had arthritis manifested within the first y ear following service ." R. at 128-29. I n November

197 4 , t h e veteran submitted a letter from Dr . Her ion, a private phy sician,

s t at i n g: On

the ba sis of

inf or ma tio n c on ta ine d in [ m] e dic a l [r ]ec or ds c ov e ri nghis ill ne ss w hil e in t

he Un ite d St a te s N a vy

fr om Augus t 19 68 to Janu ary 19 70 , it is rea sonable to pre sume that his illness then, which appea red a s mental depr e s s io n , was the same as that prese nting a s poly arthritis when I saw him in Fe bruar

y 1972. . . . The bri ef in ter

va l be tw e e n h is d isc ha

rg e fr om t

he mil ita ry and the on se t of

his poly arthritis would, I believe, make it likely that Mr. Simm ons['] chronic disea se wa s p r e s e n te v e nw h i l e h e w a s i nt h e U n i t e d S t a t e s N av y. R. at 14 9. I n De c e mbe r 1 97 4, the RO c on fi rm e d it s e arl ie r d e nia l of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or art hr iti s; the RO c on c lud e d: " Dr . He ri on ' s sta te me nt p ro vid e s n o b a sis to e sta bli shthat r

he umatoi d a

rt hr iti s develope d during [t he vete ran' s] acti v e m i l i t ary service or within the y ear presumpti[on] period following separ ation from ser vice." R. at 156. I n April 1977, the veteran submi tted to the RO a private medical r ecor d from Dr . For d, that contained a

May 1970 diag nosis of "[a]rthritis (ty pe undeter

mined)

. . . [and n] ervous a nx iety ". R. at 18 2. L a te r t

hat mo nth , th e RO c on fi rm e d it s p ri or de nia l of bo th c la ims . R. a t 18 4. Th e ve te ra n d id not appea l to the Boa

rd any of the a

bove RO dec isions. I n May 1977, the RO notified the vete ran of its decision in a l ett er that stated: "D r. F ord' s statement provides no ba sis to establish service

connec tion for ar

thritis and nervous condition"

. Ibid. I n Se pte mbe r 1 99 4, the ve te ra n f ile d a c la im a sse rt ingCU E a s to that Apr il 1 97 7 RO decision. R. at 316. I t is unclear w hether the RO had re opened the veter an' s claims and then de nied the m on th e m e r i t s o r

w h e t h e r t h e R O h a d

d e n i e d t h e v e t e r a

n ' s at t e mp tt o r e o p e nt h e p r e v iou sly disa llowed claims. F or the purpose s of this decision, the Court will assume that the RO had reope ned the ve tera

n' s claims an d d enied them on the me rits beca use that re sult would be more fa vo ra ble to the ve te ra

n an d be c a

us e , ulti ma te ly , the a dju dic a tio n of the ins tant C UE c la im w ou ld not be af fec ted in a

ny signific ant manner if the Court wer e to assume that the c laim had not in fac t be e n r e op e ne d. I n July

19 95 , th e ve te ra

n su bm it ted a

state me nt i n w hic h h e a lle g e d th a t in Ap ri l 19 77 he ha d b e e n e ntitl ed to a pr e su mpt ion

of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n und e r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3.307(a) (3)

. R. at 339. I n Fe bruar y 1995, the RO denied his CUE cla im. R. at 346-48. The4

veter an timely

appea led to the B oard. R. at 351, 359-60. I n the J anuar y 1998 BV A dec ision here on appea l, the Boa

rd denie d the veter an' s claim for CUE in the A pril 1977 RO decision. R. at 3. The a ppellant filed his brief in this case on January 28, 1999, and on Apr il 29, 1999, the Secre tary filed a motion for single -judg e aff irmance

. On October 28, 1999, the Court order ed the parties to file suppleme ntal memoranda as to the opinion of the U.S. Court of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l C i rc u i t) in Ha y re v . W est , 188 F.3d 1327 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999). Such supplemental memoranda

having been f

iled, the Court will now proce ed to adjudicate this matter.

II. Ana lys is A. C UE Cla im Preliminarily , the appe llant's br ief states: " Appellant aba ndons the CUE claim with respe ct to the nervous disorde r" . Appellant' s Br ief (B r.) a t 2, n.2. H ence , he has abandone d that issue on

a pp e a l. Se e Gr e e n (

Do ris ) v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 111, 114 ( 1997). An RO dec ision that has become f inal, as had the April 1977 RO decision, g ener ally may not b e r e v e r s e d o r a me n d e d in th e a b s e n c e of CUE. See 38 U.S.C. § 5109A (codifying into law V A regulation 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a), inf ra ); 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 05 (a ) ( 19 99); se e als o 38 U.S.C. §§ 5108, 71 05 (c ); c f. 38 U. S.C. § 511 0( i) (w he n pre vio us ly dis a llo we d cla im is re op e ne d an d all ow e d o n b a sis of newand mater ial evidenc e i n fo rm of ser vice de partment re cords, e ffe ctive date is date such disallowed cla im was filed). Se c tio n 3 .1 05 (a ) o f t itl e 38 , Co de of F e de ra l Re g ulatio ns , p ro vid e s: Where e vidence establishes [C UE], the prior dec ision will be re verse d or ame nded. For t h e p urpose of

authorizing be nefits, the rating or other a djudicative dec ision wh ic h c on sti tut e s a

re ve rs a l of

a pr ior de c isi on on the g ro un ds of [CUE ] ha s th e same eff ect a s if the cor

rec ted dec ision had been ma de on the date of the re verse d decision. 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a)

. The CUE claim prese nted here is a collater al 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) ; se e als o F ugo v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.A p p . 40, 44 (1993). I n Russell v. Principi , th e Court de fi ne d CU E a s f

oll ow s: Either the c orre ct fa cts, as they wer e known at the time, were no t b efor e the adjudicator

or the statutory

or re g ulatory

provisions ex tant at the time wer e incorre ctly

applied. . . . [CUE is] the sort of err o r whi ch, had it not bee n made,5

wo uld have manif

e stl y c ha ng e d th e ou tc ome . . . [, a n e rr or that is ] und e bata

ble , s o that it can be sa id that rea sonable minds could only co n cl u d e that the origina l decision wa s fatally

flawe d at the time it was made

. Ru sse ll , 3 Ve t.App. 31 0, 31 3- 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. C i r. 1 9 9 9) (e x pressly adopting the " manifestly chang ed the outcome " la ng uag e in Ru sse ll , su pra ), cert. de nied , 120 S.Ct

. 405 (1999). "A deter mination that there wa s a ' [C UE]' must be ba sed

on th e reco rd an d t he law th at ex is ted at th e ti me of th e pri or .
. . deci si on ." Id. at 314. " I n order for there to be a va lid claim of [C UE], . . . [ t] he cla imant, in short, must asser t mor e than a disag ree ment as t o ho w th e fact s were wei ghed or eval uat ed. " 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 alleg ed er

ror( s) w i t h "some deg ree of specific ity ". Crippen , 9 Ve t.A pp . at 42 0; Fugo , 6 Ve t.A

pp . at 44 (" to ra ise CU E the re mus t be so me de g re e of sp e c if ic ity a s to what the a lle g e d er

ro r is a nd

. . . p e rs ua siv e re a so ns mus t be g ive n a s to why the result would have be en ma nif estl ydiffer ent" ). On a

ppeal of a B VA dete rmination that there was no CUE in a pr ior final RO dec ision, the Court' s revie w is limited to de termining whether the Boa rd' s conclusion is " arbitra ry , capr icious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in a ccor dance with law" (38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)( 3)(A) ) and w hether it is supported by

an ade quate state ment of "r easons or

bases" (38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) ). Se e Ed dy v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp . 5 2, 57 (1 99 6) ; Damrel , 6 V e t.A pp . at 24 6; Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 315. As the basis for

his claim of C UE i n the April 1977 R O dec ision deny ing se rvice connec tion for arthr it is , th e a

p p e ll an t a s s e rts th a t t

h e RO f a il e d " to p r o p e r ly

a p p ly th e p r e s u mp ti o no f

s ervic e
c on ne c tio n und e r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3 .3 07 (a )( 3) " to t he fa c ts o f h is c a se . B r. a t 4. Th a t re g ulatio n, a s in eff ect in April 1977, had provide d a pre sumption of service c onnection to a ve tera n who deve loped a disea se listed in 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) (1976) (in which "ar thritis" was list ed) " to a deg ree of 10[%]

or more w ithin [ one] y ear . . . from the date of sepa ration fr om s er v i ce ". 38 C.F .R. § 3.307(a) (1 97 6) ; se e als o 38 C.F.R. § 3. 3 0 9 (a ) (1976) . Although in this ca se the B oard a ppear s to have dis a llo we d th e ve te ra

n' s c la im o n th e g ro un d th a t CU E w a s n ot a lle g e d w ith suff ic ie nt s pe c if

ic ity (R . at 9) ; s e e Cr ippe n and Fugo , both su pra , the Court will affirm the B VA dec ision on differe nt g rounds. The ve tera

n asser ted in his May 1996 Substantive Appea l to the BVA t hat the stateme nt of Dr

. Fo rd(R

. at 1 8 2 ), h adp ro v i d edan ev i d en t i ary b as i s fo r a 1 0 % d i s ab i l i t y ra t i n g fo r t h e v et er an 's6

arthritis, based on the one-y ear presumption period set f

orth in § 3.307(a) (1976). R. at 359-60. The R O i ni t s M ay

1 9 7 7 l e t t er

ex p l ai n i n g t h e A p ri l 1 9 7 7 d en i al h adex p l i ci t l y s t at edt h at "D r. Fo rd 's statement provide[d] no basis to establish s ervic e connection for arthritis"

. R. at 186. The ve tera n argued that the RO' s conclusion had been "a bsolutely not r ealistic" and thus constituted CUE. R. at 35 9. Th e ve te ra

n' s c la im i s thus a

re qu e st f

or a re we ig hin g of

the e vidence , w hic h is no t a permissible basis for a CUE claim, Ru sse ll , 3 Vet.App. at 313; w hen there is e vidence both pr o and con on the issue it is impossibl e for the appellant to succe ed in showing that "the result would have been ma nif

estl ydiffer ent" , Fu

go , s up ra . Be cause , as noted by the B oard, the re w as evide nce in the veter an' s claims file in April 1977 " to the eff ect that the onset of arthritis beg an in Dec ember 1971 [m ore tha n a y ear afte r his January 1970 discharg e], [including] the veter an' s [own] statement during the Aug ust 1974 VA examination [(R. at 123) ] .

. . , indicating the same" (R. at 10), the Court cannot disturb, on the g round that it was ar bitrary or ca pricious or other

wise not in acc ordanc e with law, the B o ar d ' s c o n c lu s io n th a t th e A p r il 1 9 7 7 RO d e c is io n d id n o t c o n ta in CUE. S ee 38 U. S.C. §§ 51 09 A, 72 61 (a )( 3) (A ); 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 05 (a ); Bustos , Eddy , Da mr e l, and Ru sse ll , a ll supra. B. Fin ality of the April

1977 RO Dec ision I n his November 2, 1999, supple me nta l m e morandum, the a ppellant ar g ues that " VA' s failure to obtain a compre hensive medic al ev al u ation to determine w hether the 10% thre shold under 38 C.F.R. § 3.309(a) [(1976)] [ sic] had been met c onstitut ed a br eac h of i ts duty to assist", a nd that "[u]nder Ha

y re [, su pra ] , the a

pp e lla nt' s 1 97 7 c la im t o e nti tle me nt t o s e rv ic e [-]c on ne c te d a rt hr iti s should be considered unadjudicated or nonfinal." I n Ha y re , the Fe dera l Circuit held that "[i] n case s of grav e pro cedu ral erro r . . . R O or Boarddeci si on s ar e no t f in al f or p urp os es o f d ir ectapp eal ". Ha y re , 188 F.3d at 1333. Specifica lly , that court held that an RO' s failure to obtain the SMRs of the

a pp e lla nt that he ha d sp e c if

ic a lly re qu e ste d be ob ta ine d a nd its fa ilure to n oti fy

him of its fa ilure to obtain them may

have c onstitut ed a g rave proce dural err or and, if so, then the RO de cision at issue there was not final. See id. a t 1335 (" if the Court of Ap pe a ls fo r Ve te ra ns Cla ims fi nd s tha t the RO brea ched the duty

to assist in 19 7 2 , t h en t h e 1 9 7 2 RO decision is not final for pur poses of dire ct appea l")

. I n so holding, the Fede ral Ci rcuit seemed t o place substantial weig ht on three f actor s, none of which is p re sent here . First, the F eder al Circuit iterate d no less than eig ht times that the VA7

a s s is ta n c e s o u g h t w a s " s p e c if

ic a ll y r e qu e s te d " , Hay re , 188 F.3d at 1331-34 (althoug h the opinion

re c og nize d th a t a s peci fi c re qu e st f or VAto o bta in p art ic ula

r r e c or ds may

no t be re qu ir e d in

a ll

c ir c ums tanc e s in ord er f

or the du ty to a ssi st t o b e tr ig g e re d) ; id. a t 13 31 (" du ty to a ssi st m ay

a ri se when a claimant simply

ref ers to the pertinent private me dical examinations or treatments without making a specific reque st"). Sec ond, the Ha y re opinion stressed the lac k-of- notice ele ment of that

c a se that ma

y " un de rm ine [ ] the op e ratio n o f t he ve te ra ns ' be ne fi ts s y ste m by

a lte ri ngits manif

e stl y pro-cl ai m an t char acte r and je opardizing the veter an' s ability to appea l in what may

appea r to be a f u ndamentally

unfair ma nner"

. Id. at 1 3 3 4 (q u o t i n g ex t en s i v el y fr o m Ge n er al Ac co u n ting Of fice and Se nate Com mit te e on

Ve te ra ns ' Af fa ir s r e po rt s, c ite d the re in, that " ill us tr a te [d] that in t he ve te ra ns ' uniquely claimant fr iendly

sy stem of aw ar d ing c ompensation, sy stemic justice and f undamental considerations of proce dural fa irness ca rry g reat significan ce . . . , e specia lly ear ly in the VA adjudicator

y proce ss"). A s i m ilar conc ern a bout the importance of the B VA' s responding to a claimant in conne ction with the claimant' s specific r e quest for a ssistance wa s expressed by this Court very ear ly in its ex istence w hen we held in Godwin v. Derwinski that " [i]nh e re nt in t he du ty -t o- a ssi st obligation and the Gi lbe rt [ v. De r w i nski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 4 9, 56 -5 7 ( 19 90 ), ] expl anatio n ma nd a te is a require ment for the Sec reta ry to respond to a c laimant' s reque st for VA a ssistance one way or the ot her. " Go dwi n , 1 Vet.App. 419, 425 ( 1991). Third, the Fe dera l Circ uit in Hayre seems to have considere d the par ticularly vital role that SMRs can pla

y in determining the question of in-ser vice incur

rence o f a d i s ability

. Id. at 1334 (" [n]ot ic e to the c la ima

nt e xpla ini ngthe fa ilure to o bta in p e rt ine nt a nd sp e c if ic a lly re qu e ste d SM Rs is theref ore e ssential to insuring that the [R O] .

. . will a dequate ly develop a veter an' s claim befor e de c idi ngit o n th e me ri ts" ). Th e op ini on a lso str e sse d th a t " VAha s su bs tanti ve ly

de fi ne d it s obligation to obtain S MRs in i ts VA Adjudication Proce dure Ma nual M21-1" , id. at 1331; that "the veter an' s possession of [S MRs] is a dec idedly abnorma l situation"; and that " [t ]he vetera n cannot

rea sonably

be expected to have such r ecor ds", id. at 1332 (interna l quotation omit ted). Indeed, V A has itself re cently

rec og nized the special role of SMRs and VA' s acc ess to them. See VA Ve tera ns Be nefits Administration L etter 20- 99-60 at 1 (Aug . 30, 1999) [hereinaft er VBA L etter 20- 99-60] (direc ting a ll ROs that certain medic al re cords " will not be reque sted prior to a deter mination that the claim is well grounde d" but also direc ting as follows: "Ser vice medic al re cords a

nd VA medica l8

cente r [(VAMC)] recor ds are to be re quested in all cases . These a

re recor ds considere d to be in VA custody ." ( emphasis adde d)). I n this case , howeve r, t he is sue i s not a failure to give ade quate noticeas to circ umstances

re gar d i n g missing

SMRs that th e a

pp e lla nt specific ally requested

VA to obtain; rathe r, the a ppellant

asser ts that the RO had h ad a duty in this case, on its own initiative, to provide for a VA medica l examination in 1977 reg ardingwhether he had manifested sy mptoms of a

rthritis to a deg ree of 10% disabling w ithin one y ear afte r hi s discharg e fr om the service in J anuar y 1970, for the pur

poses of deter mining the a

pplicability

of the pre sumption of service connec tion under 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a) and 3.309(a) (1976). Given the Fe dera l Circuit's e mphasis in Ha y re on the nee d for VAto respond to assistance that wa s "spe cifica lly reque sted" , on the fa ir " notice" aspec t, and on the par ticular importance of SMRs , the Court concludes thatHa y re do e s not re qu ir e that a bre a c h o f t he du ty to assist such as is alleg ed in this case ( failure to car ry out, sua sponte, a VAexamination) be considere d such a g rave proce dural e rror as to have tolled the finality of the Apr il 1977 RO decision. We r e a c h th is c on c lus ion

on the a ssumpt ion , b ut d o n ot d e c ide be c a us e we ne e d no t, t

hat in April 1977 there was a well-g rounded- claim require ment; that satisfy ing a ny such re quirement wa s then a pr ere quisite to the trigg eringof a duty to assist; and that th e R O i n Ap ri l 1977 had bee n prese nted wit h a we ll-g rounded c laim, se e Ha y re , 1 88 F .3 d at 13 31 (r e c og nizi ngthat duty to a ssi st applies "[o]nce a claimant has submitt ed a w ell-g rounded c laim")

. Cf. Caf frey , 6 Vet.App. at 383 (holding that VA brea ched duty to a ssist in 1975 adjudication of well-g rounded claim, but providing

no a uth or ity in su

pp or t of de te rm inatio n that du ty to a ssi st e xiste d at th a t ti me ); id. at 3 8 5 (S t ei nb er g, J., d iss e nti ng ) ( no tin g that " it wo uld be re a so na ble to c on c lud e that th e re wa s a c omp ara ble du ty to assist since at lea st the 1972 promulgation o f [ 3 8 C.F.R. ]§ 3.103(a)" ). We furthe r assume, arguendo, that the duty

to assist in April 1977 had encompas s ed a duty to obtain a medica l examination specifically

reg ardingthe application of 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307(a ) and 3.309( a). Cf. Ha y re , 18 8 F .3 d at 13 35 (r e mand ing to thi s Co ur t f or de te rm inatio n w he the r R O h a d " br e a c he d th e du ty to

a ssi st in 1972 " ( emphasis added)). I n reg ard to the a bove assumptions made for the purposes of

the above analy sis, howeve r, we note t hat t he appellant in this case has not shown that suc h assumptions

are c or re c t; that is , h e ha s n ot sho wn that an extant an d ap pli c a ble VAdu ty

to a ssi st w a s v iol a te d in 1977. We hold that such a failing would otherwise be fatal to the Ha y re relief that he see ks. Given9

the rather murky state of the law and VA regulations prior to the ena ctment of the V eter ans' J udicial Re vie w A c t ( VJRA ), Pub . L . N o. 10 0- 68 7, Di v. A, 10 2 Stat . 410 5- 41 22 (1 98 8) (f ound a t 38 U .S. C. § 7 25 1 n ote ), ins of

ar a s th e c ir c ums tanc e s und e r wh ic h VA ha d a du ty to a ssi st a

nd wh a t th a t duty comprised, in order for an appellant to pr evail on a c ontention that a pre -VJR A claim re mained open under the Ha

y re a pp ro a c h, the a

pp e lla nt mus t fi rs t e sta

bli shtha t a br e a c h o f a

n e xtan t and

a pp lic a ble du ty to a ssi st o c c ur

re d in c on ne c tio n w iththe a dju dic a tio n o f t hat pr e -V JRA c la im. Unlike the situation in Ha y re pe rt a ini ng to e xistin g me dic a l r e c or ds , th e ve te ra n in thi s c a se
wa s n ot i n a

n " a bn or ma l situatio n" wh e re VAwa s in c on tr ol o f e vid e nc e ne c e ssa ry to p ro ve his claim, Ha y re , 1 88 F .3 d at 13 32 ; see also VB A L etter 20- 99-60 , s up ra (SMRs and VAMC "r ecor ds considere d to be in VA custody ") . Rather, in this case the veter an could rea dily have obta ined a medical e x amination from a pr ivate phy sician and submitt ed the results of such e x amination along wi th t he oth e r p ri vate me dic a l e vid e nc e that th e ve te ra n s ub mit te d in

Ap ri l 19 77 . R. a t 18 2. I n f a c t, the record on

a p p e a l c o n ta in s s e v e r a l p r iv a te me d ic a l r e c o r d s s u b mi tt e d to V A b y

th e v e te r a nat

v ar io u s ti me s f

o ll o w in g h is s e r

vice. S ee , e.g. , R. a t 86 , 9 8- 10 1, 14 9, 18 2. Th e re is n o r e a so n to believe that the veter an could not have soug ht f rom those private phy sicians the medical opinion that he now a lleg es should have be en soug ht, sua sponte, by VA in 1977. No t on ly do we be lie ve that Ha y re do e s n ot re qui

re t h at a "gar d en v ar i et y " b re ac h o f V A's du ty to a ssi st, in the de ve lop me nt of a c la im that is we ll g ro un de d, be c on str ue d a s to lli ngthe fi na lity of an unde rly ing RO de cision, but we also believe that it would be unwise for this Court to ex tend Ha y re to e nc omp a ss s uc h a

du ty -t o- a ssi st v iol a tio n. At so me po int , th e re is a ne e d for fi na lity wi thi n the VA c laims adjudication proce ss; thus, t he tolling of finality should be rese rved f

or instance s of

" g ra v e p r o c e d

u r a l e r r o r "

- - e r r o r t h a t m ay d e p r i v e a c l a i m an t o f a f a i r o p p o rtu n i t y

to o bta in entitlements provided for by law and r eg ulation. Ha

y re , 188 F.3d at 1333. For e x ample, whe re do c ume nts c on ta ini ngc e rt a in i nf or ma tio n a re un de r V A c on tr ol ( re a l or c on str uc tiv e ), fai lu re t o p r o d u c e th e m is li k e ly to f

r u s tr a te an aw ar d o f b e n e fits. See VB A L etter 20- 99-60, supra. Conservative a

pplication of the Hayre tolling-of- finality doctrine is consistent with t he rationale of the F e de ra l Cir c uit , w hic h w a s g ro un de d o n Co ur t pr e c e de nts that are fi rm ly roote d in statut or ily

e sta bli sh e d f un dame nta l pr inc ipl e s o f n oti c e and the op po rt un ity to be he ard

. Th e F e de ra l Cir c uit analog ized to T

a b l az on v . B ro wn , and the cases c ited there in, which held that in the ra re10

circ umstance " wher e an a ppellant ' never

rec eived notification of any denial . . . , the one-y ear

period within which to file an NO D, which c ommences w ith the date of ma iling of notice of the re sult of initial re view or de termination, did not beg in to run' ", be cause such notice is re quired by statute and is f undamental to a full and fair a djudication of a ve tera n' s claim. Tablazon , 8 Vet.App. 359, 361 (1 9 9 5 ) ( qu o t i n g Ha uc k

v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 518, 519 ( 1994) (inter nal quotation marks omitted)). Moreove r, the limited jurisdiction assigne d to the Court by Congr ess also counse ls ag ainst a broa d application of the Ha

y re finality

exception to cover old b re ac h es o f t he duty to assist that did not seriously impair a c laimant' s opportunity to be awa rded be nefits. See Ve te ra

ns ' Judic ia l Rev ie w A c t, Pub . L . N o. 10 0- 68 7 § 40 2, 10 2 St a t. 4 10 5, 41 22 (1 98 8) (f ound a t 38 U. S.C. § 7 25 1 n ote ) ( Court g ener ally has jurisdiction to review a final B VA dec ision only

wher e an NOD was filed on or a fter No ve mbe r 1 8, 19 88 ); Ve le z v . W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 1 48 , 1 57 (1 99 8) ; se e als o Chr ist ian so n v . Colt Indus. Operating Corp. , 486 U.S. 800, 818 (1988); Prenzler v. D erwinski , 928 F.2d 3 9 2 , 3 9 3-94 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 1) ; Skinner v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 2, 3 ( 1990). Ac c or din g ly , b e c a

us e we ho ld t

hat Ha y re do e s not an d s ho uld

no t a pp ly in t his c a se so a s to

re nd e r n on fi na l th e Ap ri l 1977 RO de c isi on and be c a us e of the a

pp lic a bil ity to the CU E cla im i n th is

c a se of the Court ' s pre c e de nts to the e ff e c t tha t a VA br e a c h of the du ty to as sis t do e s n ot g e ne ra lly constitute a g round for

a color able CUE c laim, the Boa rd' s decision must be aff

irmed. Se e Ha

y re , 188 F.3d at 1333 (aff

irming t h at n o C UE claim could be ba sed on an a lleg ed leg al er ror whe n claimant " cannot prove" that alleg ed error "would manifestly chang e the outcome of the" decision b ei n g as s ai l edfo r C UE (q u o t i n g Bustos , 1 79 F .3 d at 13 81 )) ; Crippen and Fugo , b oth su pra; se e als o Caf fre yv . B ro wn , 6 Ve t.A

pp . 3 77 , 3 83 -8 4 ( 19 94 ) ( br e a c h o f d uty to a ssi st g e ne ra lly

c ann ot c on sti tut e basis for CUE c laim).

III. Conclusi on Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oi n g

a n a l y sis , th e re c or d o n a

pp e a l, a nd the pa rt ie s' ple a din g s, the Court holds that the Boa rd' s determination that the April 1977 RO decision did not contain CUE is not " arbitra

ry , capr icious, an abuse of discre tion, or otherwise not in ac corda nce w ith law" unde r 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3) (A) a nd 38 U.S.C. § 5109A and 38 C.F.R. § 3.105(a) , and that the appe llant has not demonstrate d that the BVA commi tted err or under 38 U.S.C. § 7104(d)(1) in its articulation11

o f r ea s o n s o r ba s es , s o as t o wa rr an t re v er s al o r re m an d

. T h er ef o re , t h e C o u rt d en i es t h e S ec re t ary 's mot ion fo r s ing le -j ud g e a ff

ir manc e bu t gr ants the re ma ind e r o f t he Se c re tary ' s mo tio n a

nd a ff ir ms the J anuar

y 1998 BV A dec ision. The Court, sua sponte, withdraws its May 12, 2000, opinion and issues this opini on in its pl ace ; consequ en t l y , the appe llant's July 3, 2000, motion for panel

re c on sid e ratio n o f t

he May 12 , 2 00 0, op ini on

is d e nie d a s mo ot. AFF I RMED.