Jon at h an R. St ei n ber g be ca me Chi ef J u dg e of

t h e Cour t a t n oon on Au g u s t 5, 2005. 1 UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 01-1138
C EL ER I NA P EL EA , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. R. J A M ES N I C HOL S ON , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

On Ap pe a l f ro m th e B oa

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(De cided August 5, 2005 )
Kathy A. Lieberman , o f Wa sh ing ton , D .C. , w a s o n th e br ie f f or the a pp e lla nt.
Tim S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; Joan E. Mo r i a r ty, Ac tin g As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l; Pa tri c ia T

ru jil lo , Deputy

Assistant G en er al C o unsel; and Ari Nazarov , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for

the appe llee.
Be fore STEI

NB ERG, Chief Judge , and KASOL D and HA GEL , J ud ge s. 1
STEI NB ERG, Chief Judge : I n a sing le-judg e orde r date d Marc h 2 5 , 2 0 0 3 , the Court order ed v ac at ed a Ma

y 2, 2001, decision of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd or B VA) that conclude d th at Celerina Pelea ( the appe llant) did not meet the elig ibilit y require ments for Depa rtment of Ve tera

ns Affa irs (VA) benef

its b ec au s e service in the U.S. Ar med For ces by

her de c e ased husb and , B ibi ano Pe le a , c ou ld n ot b e ve ri fi e d ( Re c or d ( R.) a t 1- 6) ; th e Court ini tia lly

or de re d th e matte r r e mand e d f or re a dju dic a tio n in

lig ht o f t he e na c tme nt o f t

he Ve te ra ns Cla ims Assistance A ct of 2000 (VC AA ), P ub. L . No. 106-475, § 3, 114 Stat. 2096, 2096-98, and the Co urt' s h o ld in g s in Qu artuccio v. Princ ipi , 16 Vet.App. 183 ( 2002), and Charles v. Principi , 1 6 V e t. Ap p
. 3 7 0 , 3 7 4 ( 2002). P elea v . Principi , 18 Vet.App. 295 ( table), 2003 WL1559912 (Mar. 25 , 20 03 ). Th e Court e nte re d ju dg me nt i n M ay 20 03 , a nd the Se c re tary

su bs e qu e ntl y soug ht reviewin the U.S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit (F eder al Circuit).2

On April 23, 2004, the F eder al Circuit vacated this Court’s single- judge order

and

rema nded the matter

for f urther pr ocee dings c onsistent with it s opinion in Conway v. Principi , 353 F.3d 136 9 (F ed. Cir. 2004). In Conway , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit c on c lud e d th a t th e Court is require d to "' take due acc ount of the rule of p re j u d icial er

ror' in all case s addre ssing the notice requ ir eme nt s i n [ 38 U.S .C . § ] 5 1 0 3 (a). " Conway, 353 F.3d at 1375. I n Dec ember 2004, in light

o f t h e F ed er al C i r c u i t 's re m an d , th i s C o urt o rd er edth e p art i es t o fi l e s u p p l em en t al p l ea d i n gs addre ssing in what respec ts VA had fa iled to comply with its VCAA notice obligatio n an d how the appe llant was spec ifically prejudice d by

that fa i l u re; both par

ties submitt ed re sponsive pleading s o n t h at i ssue. On May 17, 2005, the appe llant filed with the Court an unopposed motion that the Court order additional supplementa l briefingaddre ssing the p rejudicia l nature of VA' s purported f

ailure to fulf

ill its VCAA not ice oblig ation in light of this Court's r ece ntly issued opinion in Mayfield

v. Nicholson , 19 Vet.App. 103 ( 2005), appeal dock eted , No. 05-7157 (F ed. Cir . J un e 1 4 , 2 0 0 5 )

. T h e C o urtg r an t e d i np art th e a p p e l l an t ’ s m o t i o no nM ay 2 7 , 2 0 0 5 , an d , in so doing, the Court also directe d the par ties to address in their ple ading s the relationship bet we en 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.8 (2000) ( Phil i p p i n e an d I nsular for ces) and 3.9 (2000) (Philippi ne ser vice) (now 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.40 and 3.41 (2004) ) and 38 C.F .R. § 3.20 3 (2 0 0 4) (Ser vice r ecor ds as evidenc e of service and cha

rac ter of disc harg e). B oth parties filed r esponses but neither h as provided signific ant ana ly sis of the relationship between § 3.203 and §§ 3.40 and 3.41. F or the re asons set forth below, the Court will vacate the May 2001 Boa

rd dec ision and remand the mat t er for

rea djudication.

I. Re le va ntBac kgr ound Bibiano P. Pelea

died on Novem b er 21, 1979. R. at 18. I n November 1999, his widow, the appe llant, submit ted to th e M an i lla, Phili ppines, VA Reg ional Offic e (RO) in an informal application for

VA bene fits assertingthat her late husb an d h ad served as a g uerilla with the Phili ppine Commonwealth Army duringWorld W ar I I(W W I I ), at l ea st part of whic h was in the

se rv ic e of the Un ite d St a te s A rm e d F or c e s. R. at 9, 13 . Wit h h e r a pp lic a tio n, sh e su

bmi tte d to VA a c opy

of a nota

rized Form PVAO- 4 from the Philippine Veter ans Aff air s Office (PVAO )

cer tifying that the dece dent was a veter an of WW I I , and a statement from t h e d ec ed en t 's3

phy sic ian. R. at 9, 10 . In r e sp onse to he r a pp lic a tio n, the VA RO se nt t o th e a pp e lla nt a De c e mbe r 1 99 9 le tte r s tatin g in p e rt ine nt p art :

I f you believe you qualify or wish a f

ormal dete rmination of y our entitlement to this benefit, please complete a nd return t h e enclosed VA F orm 21-534 and submit with it the items checke d below:
/ / Co py of ve te ra n' s d isc ha

rg e c e rt if

ica te or any a c c e pta ble evidenc e of his military

service

. / / Certified true copy of the veter an' s death cer tificate bear in g the seal a nd signature of the local civil re g istrar
/ / Certified true c opy

of y our marr iag e ce rtifi cate bear ing the seal and the signatur e of

the local civ il re g istra

r o r c us tod ian o f p ub lic re c or ds

. R. at 15. I t appea

rs that none of

th e above items were chec ked or ma rked. In J anuar

y 2000, the RO r e c e iv e d

f r o m t h e a p p e ll an t t

h r e e d o c u me n ts : ( 1 ) A c o mp le te d f o r ma l a p p li c a ti o nfor dependen cy and indemnity compensation (DI C) benef its; (2) her de cea sed husband' s officia l "Ce rtificate of De ath" ; and (3) t h ei r cer tificate of marria g e. R. at 18, 21, 22. I n Fe bruar y 2000, the RO se nt t o th e a

pp e lla nt a no the r l e tte r, wh ic h s tate d in pa rt : Be fore we c an take further action on your cl aim, we must secur e a cer tifi ca t i on from the United States A rmy Reserve Personnel Ce nt er ( ARPER CEN ) t hat th e mil ita

ry se rv ic e c la ime d is rec og nized by

the United States De partment of the Army

. I t takes as long a s six months for the U.S. Army to verify milit ary se rv ic e and

y ou sh ou ld n ot i nq

uir e abo ut the status of

y our c la im with VA until six months have passe d. R. at 24 (emphasis adde d). The RO r eques t ed evidence of the dec edent’ s mili tary

service from ARPERC EN in J anuar

y 2000. R. at 27. I n Marc h 2000, ARPERC EN notified the RO that the dece dent had " no service as a me mber of th e Philippine Com monwealth Ar my , including

re c og nize d gue ri lla s, in t he se rv ic e of

the United

State s A rm e d F or c e s. " R. at 3, 27 . T he RO the n s e nt t o th e a

pp e lla nt a le tte r, date d M ay

12 , 2 00 0, inf

or min g he r t

hat h er DI C- be ne fi ts c la im had bee n denied on the ground that her spouse " did no t h av e t h e re q u ired military service to be elig ible for VAbenef

its." R. at 30. That May

2000 letter stated f

urther:4 The l aw re q uires that basic elig ibilit y to VA bene fits may

be established onl

y upon verific ation of valid milit ary service by [ARP ERCEN] . ARPERC EN advi sed us that they conducte d a thoroug h sear ch of the ir rec ords but faile d to find any evidenc e that y our spouse ser

ved as a member of

the Commonweal t h Ar my of the P hilippines, including the rec og nized g uerillas, in the s ervic e of the Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. Dec isions concer

ning ve rification o f m ilitary service are the responsibility

of ARPERCEN and under the pro v isions of law (38 Code of F eder al R egu l ations Section 3.203) ar e binding on VA wh ic h h a s n o a

uth or ity to c ha ng e or ame nd the fi nd ing s. Ibid. (em p h as i s added) . The a ppellant filed a

Notice of

Disag ree ment as to the RO dec ision (R. at 33), a

nd the RO in Aug ust 2000 issued a Statement of the Case (S OC ) conti nuing the denial of he r cla im. R. at 35. That SOC, i nter a lia, provided a list of the "P er t i n en t L aws a nd Re g ulatio ns " that a

pp lie d to he r c la im a

nd a state me nt o f " Re a so ns and B a se s" a s to why the RO denied he r cla im. R. at 38 , 3 9

. The summary of law a

nd regulation included citations, as pertinent, to 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.8(d) (1) a nd (2) a nd 3.203. As to § 3.203, the SOC stated: For the purpose of

establishing e ntitlement to pension, compensation, [ DI C] or burial be nefits, VA may acc ept evidenc e of ser vice submitted by

a cla imant (or sent dire ctl y to VA by

the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt) , s uc h a s a DD F or m 21 4, Ce rt if

ic a te of Re le a se or Di s char g e fr om Active Duty , or orig inal Certificate of Dischar g e, without verific ation from the a p p ropriate service depar tment if the evidenc e mee ts the following c onditions . . . .
R

. at3 8 (q u o t i n g § 3

. 2 0 3 (a ))

. Inth e s e c t i o n ex p l ai n i n g th e "r ea s o n s an d b as es " f o r t h e R O's denial of le g al entitlement to benef its, the SOC s tated: Entitlement to benefits fr o m VA is depende nt upon a finding by the United States De partment of the Army , that an individual had va lid mil ita ry se rv ic e in t

he Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. The lawrequire s that basic elig ibilit y for VAbenef

its may be established o nly u pon verific ation of valid military service by

the U.S. Army

Reserve Personnel C o m m and (A R-PERS COM). AR-PERS C OM ad vised us that they conducte d a thoroug h sear ch of the ir re c or ds but f

a ile d to fi nd

a ny evi den ce t

hat you r s po us e s er v ed as a member of the Commonwealth Army of the5 Phili ppines, includingthe re cog nized guerillas, in the ser vice of the Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s. Dec isions conc erning verific ation of milit ary service ar e the responsibility

of AR-PERSCO M and under the provisions of law ([3 8 C. F .R. § 3.2 03 ] ) are bin din g on VAwh ic h h a s n o a

uth or ity to c ha ng e or ame nd the fi nd ing s. R. at 39 (emphasis adde d). The a ppellant continued he r ap p ea l t o the B oard, a nd in the May 2001 BV A dec ision here on ap peal, the B oard a g ree d with the RO' s decision and c oncluded that the appe llant lacked ba sic elig ibilit y for VAbenef

its because "[t]he service de partment ha s
cer tified that [her] dec ease d husband had no service as a member o f t h e P h ilippine Commonwealth Army , including the rec og nized guerillas, in the service of the U

. S

. Armed For ces dur ing World War I I ." R. at 2.

II. Contentions on Appeal The a ppellant pre sents in her brie f and suppleme n t al b riefs se vera l arguments in support of her c la im

. F ir s t, s h e c o n te n d s th a t, p ur s u an t to 3 8 C. F

. R. § 3

. 2 0 3 ( a ) , th e PV A O d o c ument she h ads u b m i t t edwi thh er

cl ai ms h o u l d

b e c o n s i d er eds u f

f i ci en tev i d en ce o f h er

hu s b an d 's qu a lif yingmil ita

ry se rv ic e be c a

us e the te rm

"serv ice de pa

rtme nt" in r e g ulatio n § 3. 20 3 is ambig uous and nowhe re de fined in the re g ulations. Appellant' s (App.) Brie f (Br.) at 3-6. Sec ond, sh e c on te nd s th a t V A b re a c hed its duty to n oti fy he r p ur su ant t o th e VC AAbe c a us e it f a ile d to inform her

about t h e ev idence nece ssary to substantiate her c laim. App. Supplemental (Suppl.) B r. a t 1 1

. S p e c i f

i c a l l y , s h e c o n t e n d s ( 1 ) t h a tV A n e v e r n o t i f i e d h e r a b o u t" w h a tw o u l d

c o n sti tut e

' a c c e pta ble e vid e nc e ' of

[qu a lif ying ] mili tary

se rv ic e " (S up pl. B r. a t 12 ); (2 ) t hat V A f a ile d to advise he r spec ifically

that the PVAO docume nt that she had submitted was inade quate f or purposes of show ing qua lifying military service ( id . at 13); (3) that VA neve r notified her that she could submit U.S.-service- depar tment rec ords evidenc ing h er husband' s qualify ing se rvice (App. Second Suppl. Br. a

t 4-5); and ( 4) that VA f ailed to advise he r " that she should provide a ny additional persona l data per taining to he r husband, suc h as any ali as es h e m ay

have use d during milit ary service " ( Suppl. Br. at 1 2 -1 4 ). F inally , she asse rts that "[t]he natural ef fec t of lack of6

a de qu a te no tic e pr ior

to t he de nia l of

the c la im" wa s to pr od uc e pr e jud ic e a g a ins t he r cl a im. Second Suppl. Br. a

t 6. As t o th e ap p el l an t 's fi rs ta r gu m en t , t h e S ec re t ary co n t en d s t h at t h e ap p el l an t 's interpre tation of § 3.203 is inconsistent with t h i s C o u rt ' s holding in Duro v. De rwinski , 2 Vet .Ap p. 53 0 ( 19 92 ), and the ho ldi ngof

the U. S. Co ur

t of Ap pe a ls f

or the F e de ra l Cir c uit (F eder al Circuit) in Soria v. Brown, 118 F.3d 747 ( Fe d. Cir. 1997). Secre tary ' s (S ec'y ) B r. at 7-9. As to t he VC AA , th e Se c re tary a sse rt s th a t th e duty

to n ot if y is no t app lic a

ble in t his c a se beca use " the law a

nd not the evidenc e is outcome de t erminative" (Sec' y Suppl. Br. at 4) . He contends that " beca

use VA is bound by t h e cu rrent ARPER CEN deter mination that the [a]p pe lla nt d id n ot h ave qu a lif

ying ser vi c e fo r p ur

po se s o f V A b e ne fi ts, the B oa rd c or re c tly determined th a t[ , ] a s a matt e r o f la w , [th e a ]p p e ll an t w a s n o t e li g ib le f o r V A b e n e f

it s
. " Se c ' y Br

. a t 7. Th e Se c re tary

e xpla ins his c on te nti on

re g ard ing§ 3 .2 03 a s f

oll ow s: [T] he question of whe ther [the a]ppellant submitt ed evi d en ce that compl ie d w it

h th e r e qu ir e me n ts o f [§ ] 3

. 2 0 3 ( a ) ( 1 )

- ( 3 ) is not re le va nt i n th is c a se . A t mo st, c omp lia nc e wi th t ho se re qu ir e me nts g ives the RO the o ption of not requestingverific ation – an option that th e RO did

no t e xer c ise in t

his c a se
. . . . On c e the RO c ho se to reque st verification of service , it was bound by the n egative a

nswer that the appellant did not have qualifying service

. Th e s er v ice depar tment has made a

finding and the a g ency is bound by

that fi n d i n g. Id . at 10. In the alter

native, the Sec reta

ry contends that if the Court " deter mines that section 5103(a) is applicable, the Court should find that the notice af forde d was sufficient." Suppl. Br . at 3. He c on te nd s f

ur the r t hat if the Court

we re to f ind th at notic e wa s in a de qu a te the Court sh ou ld find that the appellant has failed to show that such inadequate notice was prejudicia l t o h ercase. Ib id

.

III . A pplic abl e Law a nd R e gul at ion A. V e te ra n Sta tus "I n order to qualify

for VAbenef

its, a claimant . . . or the pa rty upon who s e service the cla im antpred ica te s t h e c l a i m
. . . [ mu stbe] a 'vet eran .'" Cro pp e r v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 450, 452 (1 99 4) ; se e D'A mi c o v . W est , 2 0 9 F. 3 d

1 3 2 2 , 1 3 2 7 (F ed

. C i r. 2 0 0 0 ) ( re j ec t i n g th i s C o u rt 's7

rea soning in Lar ua n v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 80, 86 (1998) (en banc) , that "' Congr ess could not have intended that per sons without requisite vetera n status would benef

it from the st at utory presumptions and ena ctments rese rved f or vete rans' ", which re asoning Court had also em p l o y ed to hold in Laruan that claimant must show "ve tera n" status by

preponde ranc e of ev i d en ce ). A "ve tera n" is " a per son who serve d in the active military , naval, or air s er v ice, a

nd who was discharg ed or r elea sed there from under conditions other than dishonorable ." 38 U .S.C. § 101(2);

see 38 C

. F. R

. § 3.1(d) ( 2004). In cer tain circ umstances, " service " ma y include ser

vice in the Commonwealth A rmy

of the Philippines, including ce rtain org anized g uerilla for ces who wer e called into ser

vice of the U.S. Armed F orce s. See38 U.S.C. § 101(2); 38 C.F.R. § 3.40. The Sec reta

ry is authorized by

statute to presc ribe " regulations with respec t to the nature

and e xtent of

pr oo f a nd e vid e nc e and

the met ho d o f t akin g and fu rn ish ingthe m in

or de r t o establish the rig ht to benefits under [l aws a dminist ere d by VA]. 38 U.S.C. § 501(a)(1). Pursua nt to th a t a u th o r it y , th e Se c r e ta

r y h a s p r e s c r ib e d

r e g u lato r

y p r o v is io n s g o v e r

n in g th e e v id e n ti ary
re qu i r e m e n t s f

o r e s t a b l i s h i n g " s e r

v i c e " i nt h e U

. S

. A r

m e d F o r c e s f o r V A b e n e f

i t s p ur p os e s; § 3 .2 03 pr ov ide s in

pe rt ine nt p art : § 3.203 Service rec ords as evidence of service and characterof discharge. (a) E vi d en ce submitted by a claimant . For the purpose of establis hing e ntitlement to pension, compensation, [DI C] or burial b e n e f i t s [ V A ] m a y a c c e p te v i d e n c e o f s e r v i c e s u b m i t t e d b y a claiman t

. . . , s u c h a s a D D F o r m 2 1 4 , Ce rti f

ic a te o f Re le ase or Dischar g e fr om Active Duty , or orig inal Certifica te of Discha rg e, wi t hout verification from the appr opriate se rvice depar tment if the e vid e nc e me e ts the fo llo wi ngc on dit ion s: (1) The ev idence is a d ocum ent issu ed by the se rvice de pa rtme nt . A copy

of an or igina l document is ac cepta ble if the copy was issued by

the serv i ce de partment or if the copy

was issued by a publi c custodian of records who cer tifies that it is a true and e xa c t c o p y

o f th e d o c u me n t i nth e c u s to d ia n ' s c u s to dy

o r , if the copy was submitt ed by an acc redited ag ent, attorney or s er v i ce org anization repre sentative who ha s succe ssfully completed VA

prescr ibe d tr a ini ngon

mil ita ry re c or ds , a

nd wh o c e rt if

ie s th a t it is a tr u e an d e xa c t c o p y o f e it h e r an o r ig in a l d o c u me n t o r of acopy8 iss ue d b y the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt o r a

pu bli c c us to di an o f r e c or ds ; and (2) The document conta ins neede d information a s t o leng th, time and cha

rac ter of se rvice ; and (3 ) I n th e o p in io n o f [V A ] th e d o c u me n t is g e nu in e and the information containe d in it is acc urate

.

. . . . (c) Ve rific ati on fro m t

hese rv ic e de

pa rtm e nt. When the claimant doe s n o t submit evidence of service or the e vidence su bmi tte d d oe s n ot m e e t th e re qu ir e me nts of pa ra graph (a) of t

his sec ti o n ( an d p ar a g r a

p h ( b ) o f th is s e c ti o n in p e n s io n c la im s ) , [VA] shall reque st verifica tion of service fro m th e service depar tment. . . .
38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a ), (c) (2 00 4) (b old fa c e -i ta lic e mph a sis a dd e d) . A s to Phi lip pin e c la ima nts in pa rt ic ula r, § 3 .4 1 p ro vid e s in

pe rt ine nt p art : § 3.41 P hili ppi ne servic e. (a) For a Regular Philippine Scout o r a member of one of the re g ula

r c omp on e nts of

the P hi li ppine Com monwe a lthAr my whi le s e r v in g w it h A r me d F o r c e s o f U n it e d St a te s , th e p e r iod of active se rvice wi ll be from the date ce rtified by the Arme d For ces as the date of e nlistm ent or date of re port for active duty whicheve r is l a te r t o d a te of

re le a se from a c tiv e duty , d isc ha rg e , d e a th, or

in the ca se of a member of

the Philippi ne Commonwealth Army J une 30, 1946, whicheve r wa s ear lier. . . .

. . . . (b) Ac tive service of a Regu l ar Phi lippine Scout or a member of t h e Phili ppine Commonwealth Army servingwith the Ar m ed F orce s of the United States will include a prisoner-of-war status i m m ediately

following a per iod of ac tive duty , or a pe riod of rec og nized gue rrilla ser

vice or unrec og nized g uerr illa service under a r e c o g n iz e d

c o mm is s io n e d

o f f ic e r
. Inth o s e c a s e s w h e r e f o ll o w ing rele ase from active duty as set for th in paragraph ( a) of

this section, the veter an is fac tually

found by

[VA] t o have be en injured or killed by the J apane se bec ause of

anti-Japanese a ctiv i t i es o r his or her f ormer se rvi ce in the Armed F orce s of the United States, such9 injury or death may b e h el d to have be en incur red in a ctive ser

vice fo r [V A] p ur

po se s. De te rm inati on sh a ll b e ba se d o n a ll ava ila ble evidenc e, includingservice depar tment reports, a

ndconsideration shall b e gi ven to the cha rac ter a nd leng th of the vete ran' s former a c tiv e se rv ic e in t

he Ar me d F or c e s o f t

he Un ite d St a te s.
(c) A prisoner -of-w ar status ba sed upon ar rest during g e ne ra l zoni fic a tio n w ill no t be su ff ic ie nt o f i tse lf

to b ri nga

c a se wi thi n th e de fi nit ion

of re tur n to mil ita

ry c on tr ol. (d) The ac tive service of member s of the irre g ular for ces gu e rri lla wi ll b e the pe ri od c e rt if ie d b y the se rv ic e de pa

rtme nt.
3 8 C. F

. R. § 3

. 4 1 ( f

o r me r ly 3 8 C. F

. R. § 3.9). I n So ria v . B ro wn , the Fe dera l Circuit described the

re g ulatio ns g ov e rn ingthe pr oo f o f s e rv ic e by a Phi lip pin e c la ima

nt a s f oll ow s: [ T ] h e S ecr etar

y has promulg ated, inter

alia, 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.9 and 3.203(a) , (c) to gove rn the c onditions under which

. . . VA may e xte n d v e te r an s ' b e n e f

it s b a s e d o ns e r v ic e in th e Ph il ip pine Commonwealth Army . Those re g ulati o n s require that an applica nt pr ov e his se rv ic e in t

he P hi lippi ne Commonwe a lthAr my wi th either officia l do cu mentation issued by a United States ser

vice d e p art me nt or verific ation of the c laimed servic e by such a depar tment. See38 C.F.R. § 3.9(a) (authorizing ve tera ns' status for Phili ppine veter ans " from the date ce rtified b y t h e Armed F orce s [of the United States]"), § 3.203(a ) (r equiringservice depar tment documentation of se rvice wh ere available ), § 3.203(c ) (r equiring s er v ice de partment ve rification of service w h e r ed o c u me n t a t i o n is not av ail ab le ).
So ria , 118 F.3d at 748 (boldfac e-italic e mphasis added)

. B. V CAA N otic eRe qui

rements Section 3 of t h e VC AA amended, inter alia, 38 U .S.C. § 5103 ("Notice to claimants of require d information and e vidence ") . VCAA § 3(a ), 11 4 S t at

. at 2096-97. Sec tion 5103(a) pr ov ide s: (a) R EQ UI R ED I NF OR MATI ON AN D E VI DE N CE
. –Upon re ceipt of a c omp le te or

su bs tanti a lly

c omp le te a

pp lic a tio n, the Secret ary

sh a ll notify the claimant a

nd the claimant' s repr esent at i v e, if any , of any inf or matio n, and

any me dic a l or

lay e vid e nc e , n ot p re vio us ly pr ov ide d to the Se c re tary that is ne c e ssa

ry to sub sta

nti a te the c la im.10 As part of

that notice, the Sec re t ar y s hall indicate whic h portion of that inf o r mati o n an d e v id e n c e , if an y , is to b e p r o v id e d b y the claimant and which p o rt ion, if any , the Secr etar y , in acc ordanc e with s ec t i on 5103A of this title and any other a pplicable pr ovisions of law, wi ll atte mpt

to o bta in o n b e ha lf

of the c la ima

nt.
38 U.S.C. § 5103(a)

. On August 29, 2001, the Secre tary issued regulati o n s t h at implemented, inter alia, a

mended se ction 5103 in 38 C.F.R

. § 3.159(b). 66 F ed. Reg . 45,620, 45,630-31 (Aug . 29, 2001). Subject to sever al exceptions not impl icated by the cur rent a ppeal, the Se c re tary ma de tho se re g ulatio ns app li cabl e to, in te r a lia , a ny c la im f or be ne fi ts, su c h a s th os e in the instant cases, pendingbefor e the De partment a nd "not de cided by

VA" as of Nove mber 9, 20 00 , th e date of

the VC AA ' s e na c tme nt. 66 F e d. Re g . at 45 ,6 29 ; s ee P el eg r i n i v. Principi , 18 Vet.App. 112, 118- 19 (2004), appeal dismissed , 122 Fe d. Appx. 993, 2005 W L290172 (J an
. 2 6 , 2005) (or der) . Specifica lly , the amende d regulation § 3.159(b)(1) provides, and pr ov ide d at th e tim e of

the B VAde c isi on

he re on a pp e a l, i n p e rt ine nt p art : (b) VA's duty to noti fy clai ma n t

s o f nece ssary information or e v id e n ce. (1 ) Wh e n V A r e c e ive s a c omp le te or

su bs tanti a lly complete a

pplicat i o n for be nefits, it will noti fy the claimant of

any inf or matio n a nd me dic a l or

lay e vid e nc e that is nece ssa ry to substantiate the cla im. VA will inform the claimant which inf or matio n a nd e vid e nc e , i f any , th at th e c la ima nt i s to pr ov ide to VAand whi ch inf

or matio n a nd e vid e nc e , if

any , th a t V A w ill a tte mpt to obt a in o n b e ha lf of the c la ima

nt. VAwi ll a lso re qu e st that the claimant pr ovide any evidenc e in the cla i m ant' s possession that pe rt a ins to t

he c la im. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)( 1) (2004)

. Reg ardingthe notice r equire ment, in Q u a r tu c c io v
. P r inc ipi this Court remanded a matter for f urther a djudic ati on afte r conc luding that ne ither of the pote ntial VCAA-notice communications reg ardingthat matter met the r equire ments set forth in amended sec tion 5103(a) and § 3.159(b) (1) be cause they fail ed t o "' notify

the claimant . . . of

any information, and a

ny
me dic a l or

lay e vid e nc e , n ot p re vio usly pro vi ded to t he Se c re tary

that is ne c e ssa

ry to s ub sta nti a te the cl a im ' " an d f

a il e d to " ' in d ic a te w h ic h p o rti o n o f th a t in f o r mati o n an d e v id e n c e , if an y , is to be provided by

the claiman t and which portion, if any , the Secr etar y . . . will attempt to obtain on beh alf of t he cl aim ant .'" Qu ar tuc c io , 16 Vet.App. at 187 (quo t i n g 3 8 U. S .C. § 5103(a))

.11

Gene rally , "a

n appellant c laiming nonc omply ing notice bear s the burden of co n v i n cing the Court that a no tic e e rr or

ha s b e e n c omm itt e d, by

re fe rr ingto s pe c if

ic de fi c ie nc ie s in

the do cum e nt( s) in the re cord on appea l (ROA), includingany documents that the Sec reta ry and/or the B oard ma

y hav e rel iedon as h avi ng met th e sec ti on 51 03 (a)/ § 3 .1 59 (b) (1) req u i r e men ts ." Ma y fie ld , 19 Vet.App. at 111. In all case s addre ssing the notice require ments in section 5103(a) , this Court is require d to "take due ac count of the r ule of pre judicial err or" , 3 8 U. S

. C. § 7261(b)(2)

. See Conway , 3 53 F .3 d at 13 75 ; M a y f i e ld , 1 9 Vet.App. at 109-16. In Ma y fie ld , this Court di scussed extensive l y t h e requirements for the Secre tary to fulfill his not ice oblig ations, and the a pplication of the rule of pre

judicial err or by

this Court under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) both gen erally and

re g ard ingany

no tic e de fi c ie nc ie s, inc lud ingthe burd e ns on a pp e llants and the Se c re tary in

connec tion with the Court's t ak i n g d ue ac count of the pr ejudicial-e rror rule. Se e Ma

y fie ld , 19 Vet.App. at 120-24. C. Reasons or Bases Th e B oa rd is r e qu ir e d to c on sid e r a ll e vid e nc e of re c or d an d to con sid e r, and dis c us s in

its decision, all " potentially

applicable " pr ovisions of law and re g ulation. Schafrath v. De r w inski , 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 ( 1991); see38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( a ); Cha rle s 16 Ve t.A

pp . at 37 3; W

eave r v. Principi , 1 4 V e t.A

pp . 3 01 , 3 02 (20 01 ) (pe r c ur iam or de r) ; Sanden v. D erwinski , 2 Vet.App. 97, 100 (1992). The Boa

rd i s al s o re quired to include in its decision a written statement of the

rea sons or bases f

or its findings a

nd conclusions on all mater ial issues of fa ct and law prese nted

on th e re c or d; t

hat st a te me nt m

us t be a de qu a te to e na

ble an a pp e lla nt t o und e rs tand

the pr e c ise basis for the B oard' s decision, as we ll as to fac i l i tate informe d revie w in this Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Al lda yv . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A

pp
. 51 7, 527 (1 99 5); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 56- 57 (199 0 ). T o co m ply with this requirement, the B oard must ana ly ze the

cre dibilit y

and probative value of

the evidenc e, ac count for the evidenc e t h at it finds persuasive

or un pe rs ua siv e , a

nd pr ov ide the re a so ns fo r i ts r e je c tio n o f a

ny materi al e vid e nc e fa

vo ra ble to the claimant. Se e Caluz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 (1995), aff' d per curiam , 78 F.3d 604 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (t a

ble ); Ga br ie lso n v . B ro wn , 7 Ve t.A pp . 3 6, 39 -4 0 ( 19 94 ); Gi lbe rt , su pra .12 III . A nal ys is A. Reasons or

Bases In this case, the B oard f ailed to provide a

n ex p l an at i o n as to all materia l issues of law prese nted on the re cord when it did not a d d re s s (o r ci te) 38 C.F.R. § 3.9 (c urre ntly § 3.41). That regulation, which states that, for Phili ppine servic e, " the per iod of ac tive servi ce will be from the dat e c e rt i f

i e d b y th e A r

m e d F o r c e s " , a

p p e ar s t o c o n f

l i c t w i th § 3

. 2 0 3 ( a ) , w h i c h p r o v i d e s th a t a claimant may

show servic e by

submitt ing c erta in documents " without v erification from the appropr iate ser

vice d ep ar t ment". 38 C.F .R. §§ 3.41(a), 3.203( a). A lthough ne ither par ty has contende d t h at o n l y § 3 .41 g overns a nd that § 3.203 is inapplicable in the c ase of a cla imant seekingbenef

its based on Philippi ne Commonwealth Army service , i t would appea

r that § 3.41 could be r ead a s releg ating Phili ppine claimants to a sing le source – ARPERC EN ver ification – for showingU.S.-Armed- For ces se rvice

. Cf . VA G en
. C oun. Prec. 14- 94 (June 8, 1994) (explaining § 3.9 (now

§ 3.41) and statingthat this Court's holding in Du ro , su pra , as to binding nature of ser

vice de partment finding s under § 3.203 " related to the establishment of the f act of service , not to determination of the dates of such se rvice ") . I f so, then the Court' s decision in the instant matter would turn on whe th er n otice wa s proper only as to § 3.41. Howe ver, suc h an int e rp re tatio n w ou ld a

ppear to b e c on tr ary

to t he F e de ra l Cir c uit ' s ana ly sis of tho se re g ulatio ns in So ria , w h e r e it

c o n c lu d e d

th a t " th e Se c r e ta

r y h a s p r o mu lg a te d , inte r a li a , 3 8 C. F

. R. § § 3

. [4 1 ] and 3.203(a), (

c) , to gove rn the c onditions under which VA ma y extend vetera

ns' benef its based on

se rv ic e in the Phi lip pin e Commonwe a lth Ar my ." Soria , 118 F.3d at 748 (emphasis adde d). Moreove r the F eder al Circuit there explained those provisions as requiring"that an applic ant p ro ve his servic e in the Philippine Com monwealth Ar my with either

o f f ic ia l d o c u me ntation iss ue d b y a Un ite d St a te s se rv ic e de pa rtme nt or verific ation of the c lai m ed service by such a dep art men t. " Ib id . (citing§§ 3.9(a) (now § 3.41(a )) a nd 3.203(a) and (c ) (e mphasis added) ). In light of the appar ent conf lict bet we en § 3.41 and § 3.203, the Court in its May 27, 2005, order

direc ted the par

ties to addre ss "the r elationship betwee n 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.8 (Philippi ne and Insular for ces) , 3 .9 (Philippi ne ser vice) (now 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.40 a nd 3.41 (2004)) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (Service rec ords as e vidence of ser vice an d char acte r of discha rg e)"

. Pelea v

. Nicholson , N o. 01 -11 38 , 20 05 WL13 89 89 2 ( Ve t. A pp . M ay 27 , 2 00 5) . H ow e ve r, ne ith e r p art yO n r ema n d, t h i s i n t er pr et i v e qu es t i on i n v ol v es c on s i der at i on of t h e r equ i r eme n t t h at "i n t er pr et i v e dou bt " be 2
re so lve d in fa v o r o f t h e c la im a n t. See B r ow n v. G ardner , 5 1 3 U .S . 1 1 5 , 1 1 8 (1 9 9 4 ).

T he C our t not es t hat , al t houg h v et er an s t at us is an e l ement of ev er y cl ai m, f

ai l ur e t o gi ve s ect i on 510 3(a) 3

n o tice a s to sta tus w h e re tha t f a c t i s n o t i n d isp u te w ill a lw a ys b e no n p re ju d ic ia l t o the c la im a n t. See 38 U. S. C. § 7 2 6 1 (b )( 2 ); c

f. M a y field v. Ni chol

s on , 19 V et

. A pp
. 103 , 129 ( 20 05 ) ( hol di ng t hat an y B oard r eas ons - or- bas es def i ci enc y i n di s cus s i ng how s ect i on 510 3(a) / § 3. 15 9(b) ( 1) n ot i ce has been s at i s f i ed woul d of

ne ces s i t y be nonpr e

j udi ci al to c la im a n t wh e re c la im a n t re c e ive d c o m p lian t no tice ). 13 has provided a

ny signific ant guidan ce on this iss ue in their sec ond supplemental brief ing. A fter

ca re fu l co n s i d er at i o no f t h e f o re go i n g, t h e C o urt co n cl u d es t h at t h e i n ad equ ac y o f t h e B o ar d 's statement of r easons or

bases a nd the fa ilure of b o t h p ar t i es to respond to the Court' s directive on this iss ue prevents t he C ourt from c arr ying out e ffe ctive judicial re view of the May 2, 2001, BV A decision, i n sofar

as dete rmining the meaningof the a pplicable r egulations reg ardingqualifying U.S.- A r me d

- F o r c e s s e r

v ic e
. A c c o r d in g ly , w e w il l r e ma n d to th e B o ar d f

o r r e a d ju d ic a ti o n the quest i o n of the mea

ning of § 3.41 and (1) whether

that regulation require s that qualifying se rvice of Philippi ne cla imants may be shown only

throug h an ARPERCEN verification or (2) whe ther § 3.203 require s that, once that verificati o n i s s o ug ht and a ne g ative re sponse is rec eived, § 3.203(a) has no fur

ther a pplication, and, if so, whe ther that re sult obtains reg ardle s s o f whe ther the ap p el lant submits any documents bef

ore the ARPERC EN sea

rch

. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a), 2 (d)( 1); Gi lbe rt

and Allday , both su

pra . B. V CAA Com

pliance As noted above , the Secr etar y is require d by

section 5103(a ) to info rm the claimant of inf or mation and evi dence no t of re c or d, if

any (1 ) t hat is ne c e ssa

ry to s ub sta

nti a te the c la im (2 ) t hat V A w ill se e k to ob ta in, and (3 ) t hat th e c la ima

nt i s e xpe c te d to pr ov ide . 3 8 U .S. C. § 5103(a) ; Qu ar tuc c io , 16 Vet.App. at 187. I n this case, ve tera n status is a critical e lement of the claim, and se ction 5103/§ 3.159(b) notice must inform a claimant re g ardi n g an y

information and

e vid e nc e no t of

re c or d th a t is ne c e ssa

ry to sub sta nti a te that st a tus and

re g ard ingthe ob lig a tio ns , if any , of the c laimant and VA in pr oviding that e vidence

. He re , t h e Board conc luded that the 3 appellant ha d been pr ovided with the statutorily require d noti ce i n two documents, (1) the Dec ember

1999 letter a

nd (2) the August 2000 SOC. R. at 2. The appellant c ontends that neither of the se do c ume nts inf

or me d h e r " that th e inf

or matio n a nd evide nc e sti ll n e e de d to su bs tanti a te her c laim included either evidenc e of he r husband' s mili t ar y s er v ice that satisfied the14

require ments of § 3.203(a ) or pe rsonal data relating to her husband that diffe red f rom the inf or matio n s ub mitte d to ARPER CEN , s uc h a s any a lia s th a t Mr . Pe le a

may have us e d in

s ervice." App. Second Suppl. Br . at 4. For the following rea sons, we hold that neither document

c ite d b y the B oa rd no r a ny do c ume nt i n th e RO A p ro vid e d th e a pp e llan t w iththe re qu isi te
se c tio n 5 10 3( a ) n oti c e , a

nd we ho ld b e low

that th is f

a ilure wa s p re

jud ic ia l to the a

pp e lla nt. As to the Dec ember

1999 letter, we n o t e t h at , al t h o u gh i t provided a br ief list of the compon en t s n eede d to establish eligibility for VAbenef

its, it did not inform the appellant of the

e v id e n c e n e e d e d to s u

b s ta n ti a te h er c laim. See R. at 15 . F ir st, a lth ou g h th e le tte r n ote d th a t, i n
or de r t o s e c ur e " a

fo rm a l de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt t o th is b enef it " s he nee de d to su

bmi t ( wi th he r c omp le te d V A F or

m 21 -5 34 ) " the ite ms c he c ke d belo w", it a pp e ars that no ne of

tho se "items" in the list " below" had bee n chec ked. See R. at 15. Fur thermore , even if the first item on that li st had

been c hecke d, the letter g ave no indication to the appellant as to what VA

co n s i d er ed " acc eptable e vidence " of qualifying military

service

. Ib id

. H e n c e , e v e nth o u g hthe RO had r e c e iv e d

th e a p p e ll an t' s PV A O d o c u me n t t h r e e w e e k s e ar li e r , th e RO n e it h e r in f ormed her of the inadequa cy

of the PVAO d o cu m en t nor provided he r with information as to what documents she c ould submit that would consti t u t e "acc eptable e vidence " of qualifying military

ser vice (s uc h a s a

U. S.- se rv ic e -d e pa

rtme nt d oc ume nt, a ssumin g tha t th e c or re c t la w i s, a s So ria , su pra , s tate s, that § 3 .2 03 provid e d th e a pp e lla nt w ithan o pti on , n otw ith sta nd ing§ 3 .4 1, to submit U.S .-ser

vice- depar

tment documents). Ib id

. Moreove r, as di s cussed be low, VA sent to the a ppellant furthe r cor

responde nce that was incomplete or a ffirmatively misleading (assuming that § 3.203 applies her e). In t h at reg ard, the Fe bruar y 2000 RO letter to her

stated (with no fur

ther qua lification or explanation): Be for e we c an take further action on your cla im, we must secur e a cer tification from

. . . ARPERC EN

. . . that the milit ary s ervic e claimed is re cog nized by t h e Uni ted States Depa rtment of the Army

. . . . R. at 24 (empha sis added)

. The a bove-quote d statement did not inform her that § 3.203(a) a llows h er t o s u b m i tce rt ai nd o cu m en t s , "s u ch as a D D F o rm 2 1 4 , C ert i fi ca t e o f R e l e a s e o r D i s ch ar ge from Ac tive Duty , or orig inal Certificate of Discha rg e with out v e rif

ic ation from t

he appr op ria te servi ce dep artment ." 38 C.F .R. § 3 .2 03 (a ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; see So ria , su pra . The15

a b o v e - qu o t e d

s t a t e m e n t , a s w e l l a s b e i n g i n c o m p l e t e , a l s o m ay

i mp l y th a tth e a

p p e l l an t' s onl

y
avenue of showingqualifying se rvice is "a ce rt i fi cation fr om [ ARPERC EN]". He nce, a
rea sonable pe rson, upon re ceivingsuch notice, mig ht well be discoura g ed from submitting to VA any § 3.203(a) -qualify

ing documents in their possession. Cf. Ma y fie ld , 19 Vet.App. at 125 (holding that rea sonable pe rson would have known, base d on RO' s relatively contempora

neous communications, about what evidence was " missing" in order to substantiate c laim). F ur the rm or e , th e RO c omp ound e d th is p ro ble m by tw ic e pr e se nting the a pp e lla nt w ith aff irmatively m i s l eadingstatements (a g ain assuming that § 3.203 applies her e). See ibid. (re fer r in g to h o wc o n f

u s in g n o ti c e " c o u ld

amo un t t o a

n o ti c e d e f

ic ie n c y " )

. F ir s t, u

p o nin f orming her that her DI C claim had bee n denie d , t h e R O stated in the May 2000 letter that " [t ]he law require s that basic elig ibilit y for VAbenef

its may be esta blished onl

y up on ve ri fi c a tio n o f v a lid mil it ary ser vi ce b y

[ARPE RCEN]. " R. at 30 (e mph a sis a dd e d) . Se c on d, the RO re pe a te d th is misstatement of the law (ag ain assuming that § 3.203 applies here ) in the August 2000 SOC cited by the Bo ar d

. Al t h oug h the SOC acc urate ly quoted § 3.203 in the sec tion entitled "Pertinent L aw s an d

R egu l at i o n s " ( R

. at3 8 ), th e "R ea s o n s an d Ba s es " s ec t i o no nth e v ery n ex tp age contained the same inaccura te (ag ain assumi ng that § 3.203 applies) statement of l aw (noting that "ba sic elig ibilit y

to VA bene fits m ay be esta blished onl

y upon verific ation of valid military service by

[AR-P ERSC OM]"). R. at 3 8 -3 9 (empha sis added). In addition, the SOC postdated the May 2000 initial unfavorable ag ency of orig inal jurisdictio n (AOJ ) dec ision in t he instant

case
. See Pelegrini , 18 Vet.App. at 120 (holding tha t s ec t i o n 5 103(a) notice must prec ede initial AOJ adjudication on service -conne ction claim). Havingfound a notice err or, the Court must now "tak e d u e ac co u n t of the rule of prejudicia l error ". 38 U .S.C. § 7261(b)(2) (a s amende d by Veter ans B enef

its Act of 2002 (VBA) , § 4 01 , Pu b. L . N o. 10 7- 33 0, 11 6 St a t. 2 82 0, 28 32 ); see Conway , 3 53 F .3 d at 13 74 -7 5. With respe ct to the Fe dera l Circuit's re mand base d on Con way , s up ra , the Cou rt notes that, in its May 2 0 0 3 o rd e r t h e C o urt d i d

n o t"f l at l y re fu s e[ ] t o 't ak e du e a cc o un to f t h e r u l e o f p re j u d i ci al erro r. '" Conway , 353 F.3d at 1373 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)( 2) (as amende d by the V BA )). No ne the le ss, thi s c a se ha s b e e n r e mand e d to us
.16

In Mayfield, we discus s ed the rule of prejudicia l error

in relation to burdens of proof a nd production under

the VCAA. Spec ifically , the Court held: [A] n appella n t claiming noncomplying notice bear s the burden of convincingthe Court that a notice err o r has been committed, by r e f e r ring to sp e c if

ic d e f ic ie n c ie s in

th e d o c u me n t( s ) in

th e [R O A ], including a

ny documents that the Sec reta ry and/or the B oard ma

y hav e r e li e d

o na s h av in g me t t

h e s e c ti o n5 1 0 3 ( a ) /§ 3

. 1 59(b)( 1) require ments – that is, the appellant bea rs th e b u rden of demonstratingspecific ally in wh at respects the pa rticular notice docu m en t s are noncompliant in terms of the purpose s sought to be achie ved by

the notice r equire ments.
Ma y fie ld , 1 9 V e t. App . at 11 1. I n th e ins tant c a se , th e a pp e lla nt c on te nd s, and

the Court

a g re e s, that VA bre ache d its section 5103(a) duty to notify her as to the information and e vidence neede d to substantiate h er claim when, inter alia a nd as discussed a

bove, it (1) f

ailed to advise he r that the PVAO docume nt that she had submi tted was inade quate f or purpose s of showingqualifying service , and (2) failed to notify her a bout "what would constitute 'a cce ptable e v idence ' of [qualify ing] milit ary service ". App. Suppl. B r. at 12-14. The Secre tary ' s failure in th i s re gard constituted a fa ilure as to the "first notice element" , Ma y fie ld , 19 Vet.App. at 122, which, as the

a pp e lla nt corr ect ly a sse rt s, c on sti tut e s a VAfa ilure " to p ro vid e a ke y e le me nt o f what it

take s to substantiate her

claim, there by p rec luding he r fr om participatingeff ectively in the proce ssing of her c lai m, whi ch w ou ld s u b st ant ial ly defe at t he v ery

pu rpo se o f se cti on 51 03 (a) n ot ice ". Ma y fie ld, su pra; se e Pelegr ini

, 18 Vet.App. at 122 (explaining that " the ver y purpose of requiringthat a cla imant whose cla im is m issi ng nece ssary evidenc e be notifie d of the information an d ev i d en ce ne eded to substantiate the claim is so that the claimant and/or VA ca n pr od uc e that mi ssi nge vid e nc e " ). Our con clu si on that th e Se c re tary

fa ile d to pr ov ide no tic e a s to the first notice e lement su b s u m es a co n clusion that the Secre tary failed to notify

the appe llant ab o u t w h o w o u ld b e r e s p o n s ib le f o r s e e k in g to o b ta in th e in f o r mati o n an d e v id e n c e r e qu ir e d by the fi rs t no tic e e le me nt. Th e re fo re , a lth ou g h the e rr or he re c ou ld be a sp eci fi c
s e c o n d

- n o t i c e - e l e m e n tv i o l a t i o na s w e l l b e c a u s e § 3

. 2 0 3 ( a ) r e f

e r s t o " e v i d e n c e s u

b m i t t e d b y a claimant" , the c lear

first-notice- element violation controls. The ref ore, no f urther a naly sis of the eff ect of a sec ond-notice- element violation is require d.17

Acc ording ly , beca

use that notice e rror

is such that it would ha v e "the natura l effe ct of producing pre

judice" , the burde n shifts to the Secreta ry to demonstrate " that there was c lear ly no prejudice " to the a

ppellant from the notice er ror in ter ms of the fa irness of the a djudication. Mayfield, 1 9 V e t

. Ap p
. a t1 2 1

. A s t o h o w t h e S e c r e t ar y m ay m e e tt h i s b ur d e n , w e h e l d in Ma y fie ld : [T] he Secr etar y must demonstra t e a lac k of pre judice by persua d i n g the Court that the purpose of the notice wa s not frustrated – e.g ., by

demonstrating(1) that a

ny d ef ec t in notice was c ur e d b y a c tua l kn ow le dg e on

the pa rt of the a pp e llant th at ce rt a in e vid e nc e (i .e ., the mis sin g inf or ma tio n o r e vid e nc e ne e de d to substantiate th e cl aim) wa s require d and that she should have pr ov ide d it , o r ( 2) tha

t a re a so na ble pe rs on c ou ld b e e xpe c te d to un de rs tand

fr om t he no tic e pr ov ide d w hat wa s n e e de d, or (3 ) t hat a benef it could not possibl y

have be en aw arde d as a matter of law

. Ma y fie ld , 19 Vet.App. at 121 (citations omitted). The Sec reta

ry asser ts that the appellant wa s not prejudice d b y l ac kof notice be cause a "r easona ble per son could have expected to under stand from the n o t ice pr ovided that [the a]ppellant neede d to submit evidenc e showingthat the dec edent ha d val i dmilit ary service ." Sec' y Second Suppl. Resp. at 4-5. As s u m i n g that § 3.203(a) is applicable he re, the Court cannot ag ree that the misleadinginformation provided to the a ppellant prior to (or

afte r) the i n i tial AOJ

a dju dic a tio n w ou ld h ave pr omp te d " a re a so na ble pe rs on " t o su

bmi t a dd iti on a l e vid e nc e . In f a c t, it i s ju st a s li ke ly

– if no t mo re so – th a t su c h mi sle a din g no tic e mig ht c omp e l a " re aso nable pe rs on " in p os se ssi on

of § 3 .2 03 (a )- c omp lyingdo c ume nts not to submit t hose docume nts. Th e Se c re tary

ne xt as serts th at the f a ilure to n oti fy

wa s n on

pr e jud ic ia l in

thi s c a se beca use the a ppellant is ineligible fo r VA b en ef its as a matter of

law. Specif

ically , he conte nds that "[o]nce the RO chose to reque st verification of service , it was b o und by the neg ative answ er that [t he a]ppellant did not have qualifying service ." Sec' y Br

. at 10. The Secre t ar y as s er t s that § 3

. 2 0 3 ( a ) an d ( c ) ar e f u l l y a p p l i c a b l e t o P h i l i p p i n e s c l a i m an t s b u t th a t o n c e V A r e qu e sts veri fi cat io n u nd er pa ragraph (c), th e cl aim a n t l o s e s th e ri ght u nd er § 3 .2 03 (a)(1 ) t o s ub mi t "a d o c u m e n t i s s u e d b y th e s e r v i c e d e p art m e n t "

. T h e S e c r e t ar y c i t e s n o a

u th o r i ty f

o r t his interpre tation, and neither the pl ain l anguag e of the regulation nor the applica ble ca selaw in So riaW e no t e t hat i n So r i a v
. Br own , t h e U .S . C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo r th e F e d e ra l C irc u it (F e d e ra l C irc u it) 4 ch ar ac t er i ze s § 3. 203( c) a s a pr ov i s i on t o be u s ed " w h e re d o c u m e n ta tio n is n o t a v a ila b le "

. S o ria , 118 F. 3d 747, 749 (F e d . C ir. 1 9 9 7 ). In a c a se w h e re a c la im a n t p o sse sse s, a n d w ish e s to su b m it, § 3 .2 0 3 (a )-c o m p lying d o c u m e n ts, i t wo u ld no t ap p ear t hat t ho se do cum ent s are " n o t a v a i l ab l e" s i m p l y be cause a s ervi ce d ep art m ent has i ss ued a negat i ve cer t i f i cat i on. T he F ed era l C i rcu i t d i d not s t at e t hat "ava i l abi l i t y " of a document woul d be re nder ed mo ot i f a s er vi ce depa r t men t h ad i s s u ed a n eg at i v e c er t i f i ca t i on
. I n dee d, t h at cou r t ' s onl y s t at eme n t i n t h i s re g ar d f ocu s es on pa r ag r aph (c ): " W h e re se rv ic e d e p a rtm e n t ce rtifi c a tio n is re q u ire d , s ee 38 C. F . R . § 3. 20 3(c) , t he V A ha s l ong t r eat ed t he s er vi ce depa r t men t ' s de ci s i on on s u ch m at t er s as c on cl u s i v e an d bi n di n g on
. . . V A. " S o ria , 11 8 F.3d at 74 9 (emp hasi s ad d ed ). T he sol e f

o cus i n S o ria was on the c o n c lus ive nat ure of s ervi ce- d ep art m ent do cum ent s (whi ch i ncl ud e b o t h t he d o c u m e n ts li ste d in 3 8 C .F .R . § 3 .2 0 3 (a ) a s w e ll a s a ve rifica tio n b y the d e p a rtm e n t un d e r § 3 .2 0 3 (c ))

.

I n t h i s r eg ar d, a me mor an du m t o t h e f i l es f r om t h e M an i l l a V A Reg i on al O f f i ce s t at ed: 5

A R P E R C E N ha s r epeat edl y i nf ormed V A t hat un l es s t he cl ai mant r eport s per s onal dat a ( s u ch a s na me) w h i ch i s di f f er en t f r om t h at w h i ch w as pr ov i ded i n a pr i or 18 or Du ro , both su

pra , provides cle ar suppor t for the Sec reta

ry ' s position as to t he ex clus ive 4

co n s eq uence s of see king ve rification from ARPERC EN. Where the ag ency itself has ar

ticulated no position on a re gu l at i o n , the Court owes no de fer ence to "a g ency counsel' s interpre tation" of that regulation adopted for the purpose of

litigation. Bo we n v . George tow n U niv . H os p ., 488 U.S. 204, 212-13 (19 9 8 ). I ndeed, a s set forth in par t I I I .A, above , So ria a

pp e ars to e sta

bli sh an option for a

claimant to show qualify ing serv i ce " with either

officia l documentation issued by

a Un ite d St a te s se rv ic e de pa rtme nt or verific ation of t h e cla imed service by such a de partment." So ria , 118 F.3d at 748 (emphasis adde d). Moreove r, eve n if the Court w ere to de termine that the Secre tary ' s proffe red inter pretation of that r e g ulatio n is c or

re c t, V A w ou ld s ur e ly

have a duty to n oti fy the a pp ell ant no t on ly

a s to what would constitute a § 3.203( a)- qualifying doc ument, b u t also as to the conse quence s, under that r e gu lator

y int e rp re tatio n, of

fa ili ngto s ub mit

su c h a do c ume nt p ri or

to t he RO ' s d e c isi on

to
se e k v e ri fi c a tion fro m AR P ERC EN . Ind e e d, in a sc he me wh e re VA ' s in iti a l in qu ir y to ARPERC EN car

ries such pote ntially

outcome-de terminative c onsequenc es, the duty to notify the

c la ima nt a s to wh a t e vid e nc e sh e may su bmi t w ou ld b e of

e ve n g re a te r impor

tanc e . Si mil arl y , in the context o f s u ch an interpr etation, or more so, if § 3.203(a) is not applicable he re, V A' s failure to inform the appe llant that she should "pr o v i d e any additional persona l data per taining to he r husband, such a s any

aliases he may

have use d during milit ary service ", w o u l d al s o be a notice

err or
. Cf

. Sa rm iento v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 80, 85 ( 1994) (holding that when c laimant supplies 5r equ es t f o r s er v i ce v er i f

i ca t i on , t h er e i s n o v al u e i n r es u bmi t t i n g a r equ es t f or r eve r i f i cat i on. A po t ent i al cl ai mant ' s s er vi ce i s ver i f i ed by t he r ecor ds as s oci at ed
w ith h is na m e . If the na m e is a c o m m o n o n e o r if the re a re m ino r d isc re p a n c ie s in sp e lli n g o r th e m id d le initial, A R P E R C E N w ill c o m p a re the se rv ic e nu m b e r, d a te of bi r t h , pl ac e of

bi r t h a n d n ame s of

ne x t of ki n prov i ded t h em on V A For m 3101 wi t h r ecor ds t hey ha ve on f i l e.
R e c o rd (R .) a t 4 5 . H o w e v e r, a s the a p p e llan t as se rts, the re is n o in d ic a tio n th a t V A e v e r c o n v e ye d tha t i n fo rm a tio n to the a p p e llan t.

W ith re g a rd to the S e c re ta ry' s inte rp re ta tio n o f § 3 .2 0 3 , d isc u sse d in p a rt II I.A a t a n d in n o te 1 , su p ra , t he 6 Se cret ary s ho ul d co nsi d er t he ap p ro p ria te n e ss o f dis p arat e o ut co m es t hat m ay res ul t f rom V A ' s f

ai l ure t o f

ul f i l l t he sect i o n 51 0 3 (a) no t i ce req ui rem ent s. Fo r examp l e: C l ai m ant X and cl ai m ant Y bo t h po ss ess U

. S.- ser vi ce- d ep art m ent d o cum ent s d eem ed t o b e q ual i f y i ng evi d ence pursuant t o § 3

. 2 0 3 (a), b ut X subm i t s hi s d o cum ent as proo f of q ual i f y i ng s er vi ce ( perh aps becau s e he has been gi ven not i ce un der t he V C A A ) an d Y does not ( perh aps becau s e h e h as not been gi ven s uch not i ce)

. X ' s cl ai m i s gr an t ed. Y , becau s e h e di d not s ubmi t hi s qual i f y i ng document , mus t ge t ser vi ce- d e p a rtm ent veri f i cat i o n, and he get s a no - veri f i cat i o n res p o nse. Y s ub m i t s hi s ser vi ce- d ep art m ent qua l i f y i ng do cumen t as proof

, but i t i s not acc ept ed un der t hi s § 3. 20 3 i nt er pret at i on becau s e V A has alrea d y s o ug ht ser vi cedepa r t men t v er i f

i ca t i on a n d r ec ei v ed a n o- v er i f i ca t i on r es pon s e. I n c on n ec t i on w i t h t h e r ema n d or der ed on t h e bas i s of the a n a lysis in p a rt II I.A , ab o v e , V A sh o u ld d e te rm ine w h e the r th e re is go o d ju stif ic a tio n fo r a d iff

e re n t o u tc o m e sim p ly b e c a u se o f w hen t he cl ai mant s ubmi t t ed hi s or her qual i f y i ng ev i dence , es peci al l y i n a s i t uat i on wh er e no not i ce was gi ven t o t he cl ai mant as t o hi s or her r i gh t t o s ubmi t U

. S.

- s er vi ce- depart ment ev i dence

.

19 new identify

ing inf ormation VA must s u b m i t additional reque st to ARP ERCEN for ver ification of ser vice) , o v e rr u l e d

o n o th e r gr o u n d s b yD ' A m i c o v
. W

es t , s up ra . Henc e, notwithstandingthe possible impact of § 3.41 discussed a bove, the Court conc ludes that under e ither i n t erp retation of § 3.203 the Secr etar

y did not comply

with his noti ce oblig ations in this case , an d t h at the 6 S e c r e t ar y h a s n o t d e m o n s tr a t e d th a t s u c h n o t i c e e r r o r w a s c l e ar l y n o t p r e

j u d i c i a l

. A c c o r d i n g l y,
re mand on thi s n oti c e g ro un d is ind ic a te d a s w e ll. C. M e rit s As to the appe llant's a ssertion that t h e P VA O d o cument that she had submitted with her claim should be consider ed suff icient evidenc e of he r husband' s quali fy ing military service beca use the ter

m "se rvice depar

tm en t " in regulation § 3.203 is ambiguous and nowhere define d in the regulations, App. Br . at 3-6, the Court c annot ag ree . This argument ignor es wel l -settled

case law interpr eting § 3.203 as re quiring "of ficial doc u m en t at ion issued by a United States

s e r v ic e d e p artm e n t o r v e r if

ic a ti o n o f th e c la im e d s e r v ic e b y " th e U

. S. s e r

v ic e d e p artment. Soria , 118 F.3d at 748.20 IV. Conclusion On the basis of the fore g oing analy sis, the ROA, and the parties' pleading s, and having "take[n] due ac count of the r ule of pre

judicial erro r" p u rs u an t to 38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2), the Court vacates the May

2001 BV A dec ision and remands the matter for expeditious further development a

nd issuance o f a rea djudicated de cision supported by an ade quate state ment of

re as o n s or base s, see 3 8 U

. S. C. § § 1 0 1 ( 2 ) 1 3 1 0 , 7 1 0 4 ( a ) , ( d ) ( 1 ) ; 3 8 U

. S. C. § § 5 1 0 0

- 5 1 0 3(a) , 51 03 A, 51 06 , 5 10 7; 3 8 C. F .R. §§ 3. 1( d) , 3 .40, 3. 41 , 3. 15 9, 3. 20 3; Pelegrini , Charles , and Qu ar tuc c io , a ll su

pra ; Fletche r v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 3 94 , 3 97 (1 99 1) , a ll c on sistent wi th t his opinion and in acc ordanc e with 38 U.S.C. § 7112 (as a dded by the Vete rans B enef

its Act of 2003, P u b

. L

. No . 108-183, § 707(b) , 117 Stat. 2651, 2673) (re quiring Secre tary to "take such

a c tio ns a s ma

y be ne c e ssa

ry to p ro vid e fo r t

he e xpe dit ious tr eatme nt b y the B oa rd of any c la im th a t i s r e ma

n d e d to th e Se c r e ta

r y b y th e Co urt") ; s ee V

a r gas-Gonzalez v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 222, 225-30 (2001) (holding that VB I A § 302 applies to all ele ments of a c laim remande d by Court or Boa

rd), a nd in acc ord an ce with all applicable la w and r egulation. See A llday , 7 Vet.App. at 5 3 3 -34. On re mand, the appe llant will be free to submit additional evidenc e and argument on the re manded c laim, and t h e Bo ard is re quired to consider any such evide nce a

nd argument. See Kay

v. Principi , 16 Vet.App. 529, 534 ( 2002). A re mand by this Court o r by

the Boa rd conf ers on an appellant the rig ht to VA compliance with the ter ms of the re mand orde r and imposes on the S ec re t ar y a conc omitant duty

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

ga ll

v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 268, 271 (1998). A fina l decision by the B oard f

ollowing the r emand he re in o rd e re d w ill c on sti tut e a new de c isi on that, i f a dv e rs e , ma

y be a pp e a le d to thi s Co ur

t on ly upon the filin g o f a new Notice of Appea l with the Court not later than 120 day s after the date on which notice of

the Bo ar d 's n ew fi nal dec ision is m ailed to the appe llant. Se e Ma rsh v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 468, 472 ( 1998). VACATED A

ND REMANDED

.