UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 03-1628
C R I S PI N B. U

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

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

rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls
(Argued May

4, 2006 Dec ided J une 21, 2006 )
Kenneth M. Carpenter , of To pe ka , Ka ns a s, wi th wh om Jeffrey J. W ood , of York, Pe nn sylva

nia , w a s o n th e br ie f f

or the a pp e lla nt. Tracy K. Alsup , w i t h w ho m T im S. Mc Cla in , G e ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , As sis tant G e ne ra l Co un se l; Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy

Assistant Counsel; and Nolan D. Paige , Deputy Assistant Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for the appe llee.
Be fore KASOL D, HAGE L , and SCHOEL EN, Judges

. KASOL D, Judge , filed the opini on of t he Court. HAGE L , Judge , filed a c oncurr ing opinion.
KASOL D, Judge : Crispin B. U ntalan appe als thoug h counsel a J une 2, 2003, dec ision of the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Ap p ea l s (B o ard) that declined to r eopen his c laim for disability compensation benef its that had been forf

eited pursua

nt to 38 U.S.C . § 3504(a) (now 38 U.S.C. § 6104(a) ) base d on a dete rmination that Mr. Untalan had assist ed an enemy of the United States. Mr. U ntalan ar g ues that the B oard e rre d, as a f actual m at t er an d as a matter of law, in findingthat his testimony

re g ard inghis mens rea at the time that he rende red assistance to the e nemy did not constitut e new
an d m at er i al ev i d en ce p u rs u an t t o 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 8

. T h e S ec re t ary as s er t s t h a t t h e B o ar d 's d e t e r m i n a t i o nt h a tM r
. U n t a l anh a s n o tp r o v i d e d n e w an d m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e i s s u

p p o rt e d b y a plausible basis in the rec ord. F or the re asons set for th below, the Boa

rd' s decision will be af

firmed.2 I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Untalan se rved in the Philippines at the tim e o f t h e J apane se invasion and oc cupation during World W ar I I . He ha d belea g uere d status from J anuar y 1942 to April 1942, prisoner of war (P OW) status fr om A

pr il 1 94 2 to Se pte mbe r 1 94 2, no -c a su a lty status fr om S e pte mbe r 1 94 2 to Ap ri l 1 9 4 5 , an d r e g u l ar P h i l i p p i n e A r

m y s e r v i c e f r o m A p r i l 1 9 4 5 t o M ar c h 1 9 4 6

. R e c o r d ( R

. ) a t5 4

. In Ap ri l 19 72 , M r. Un ta lan s ub mit te d a c la im f or dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n be ne fi ts, c la ime d a s r e sid ua ls of his POW ex perie nces. R. at 48- 52. I n an Oc tober 1976 de cision, the direc tor of VA Compens at i o n and P ension Service de te rm ine d that, un de r 38 U. S.C. § 35 04 (a ), Mr

. Un ta lan h a d f or fe ite d e nti tle me nt t o V A b e ne fi ts beca use of his assistance to the I mperial Japanese Gover nment and his sustained member ship and

se rv ic e of 13 mon ths in the Japa ne se -s po ns or e d- and -c on tr oll e d B ur e a u of the Con sta

bu lary (BC) during the J apane se occ upation of the Philippines. R. at 93-98. Mr. Untala n d i d n o t appeal that decision. I n N ov e mbe r 1 99 3, Mr . U nta lan r e qu e ste d tha t his c la im f or dis a bil ity c omp e ns a tio n b e ne fi ts be re opened on the basis that new and materia l evidenc e had been submitted. I n April 1994, a VA

re g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) de te rm ine d that th e inf or ma tio n w a s n ot n e w a

nd ma te ri a l and

that th e c la im

c ou ld n ot b e re op e ne d. R. at 12 1- 22 . M r. Un ta lan ti me ly a pp e a le d a nd a ft e r t wo B oa rd re mand s ( R. at 198-205, 233-40) , two reman d s fr o m t his Court (R. at 218, 289), and fur ther de velopment, the Boa rd deter mined in the decision here on appea l that the evidenc e submitted by Mr. Untalan w as not new and materia l beca

use t he evidence advanc ed the same arg uments and propositions that had bee n considere d and re

jected in the f

inal October

1976 decision (R. at 1-21)

.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Evidenc e of Mens Re a P u r s u an tt o 3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 8 , " i f n e w an d m a t e r i a l e v i d e n c e i s p r e s e n t e d o r s e c u r e d w i th respe ct to a cla im which has bee n disallowed, the Sec reta ry shall reope n the claim and r eview the fo rm e r dis po sit ion of the c la im. " At the tim e Mr . Unt a lan f ile d h is c la im, the ve rs ion of 38 C.F .R. § 3 .1 56 (a ) t

he n in e ff e c t s tat ed that

" [n]e w a nd ma te ri a l e vid e nc e me ans e vid e nc e no t pr e vio us ly submitt ed to ag ency decisionmake rs which bear s direc tly and subst antially upon the spec ific matter3

under c onsideration, which is ne ither cumulative nor redunda nt, and which by

itself or in conne ction wi th e vid e nc e pr e vio us ly a sse mbl e d is so sig nif

ic ant t hat it mus t be c on sid e re d in

or de r t o f

a ir ly de c ide the me ri ts o f t

he c la im. " 38 C.F .R. § 3.1 56 (a ) ( 19 93 ); se e als o E lk ins v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 20 9, 21 6 ( 19 99 ) ( e n b anc ); Ev an s v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 273, 283 ( 1996). The Court g ener ally revie ws whether the appellant has subm itted new and materia l evidence to re op e na

p r i o r c l a i m u n d e r

t h e " c l e ar l y

e r r o n e o u s " s t an d ar d

o f r e v i e w s e tf

o rt h i n3 8 U. S.C. § 7261(a) (4). See Suaviso v. Nicholson , 19 Ve t.A pp
. 53 2, 53 3 ( 20 06 ) ( re a ff ir min g that th e Court

wi ll g e ne ra lly a pp ly the " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s " s t a

nd ard of re vie w) . " A f

a c tua l f ind ing' is " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s" wh e n, a lth ou g h th e re is e vid e nc e to sup po rt it, the re vie wi ngc ourt on the e nti re e vid e nc e is l e ft

wi th the de fi nit e and fi rm c on vic tio n that a mis ta ke ha s be e n c omm itt e d.'" He r s ey v. Derwinski , 2 Ve t

. Ap p
. 9 1 , 9 4 (1 9 9 2 ) ( qu o t i n g United States v. U.S. G ypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395 (1948)). The Court may not substitut e it s judgme nt for the fac tual deter minations of the Boa

rd on issues of

ma te r i a l f

a c tm e r e l y

b e c a u s e t h e C o u rtw o u l d

h a v e d e c i d e d

t h o s e i s s u e s d i f

f e r e n t l y i nt h e f i r st instance. Id . Moreove r, the B oard is re quired to include in its decision a w ritten statement of the

rea sons or bases f

or its findings a

nd conclusions on all m ater ial issues of fact and law pre sented on the re cord; that stateme nt must be adequate to enable an appe llant to understand the prec ise basis for t h e B oard' s decision, as we ll as to facilitate infor med re view in this Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 4( d) (1 ); Al lda

yv . B ro wn , 7 Vet .App . 5 17 , 5 27 (1 99 5) ; Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 49, 56-57 (1990)

. I n the ins t an t ca s e, the B oard r eviewe d the evidenc e re ceive d since the pr ior final disallowance and dete rmined that the e vid en ce p re s en t ed wa s not new and material. See Trilles

v . W est , 1 3 V e t.A

pp . 314 , 322 (2 00 0) (e n b anc ) ( ho ldi ngthat an atte mpt to h a ve fo rf

e ite d b e ne fi ts restored " is essentially

one to re open the f

orfe iture matter in a

proce dure similar to re opening disallowed cla ims for VA be nefits as mandated by 38 U.S. C

. § 5 1 0 8 ")

. The B oard note d that evidenc e submitt ed afte r the 1976 decision ref lects that Mr. Untalan was sick with m al aria, dy sentery , and diar

rhea while detaine d in the POW camp ( see R. at 14 ; see also R. at 107, 109, 314, 316-17), that the c onditions i n the POW camp wer e inhumane with no medical car e for the prisoner s ( see R. at 14 -1 5; s e e a ls o R

. at 1 5 6 , 3 1 4 , 316-17), a nd that he believe d that he would have died4

unless he joined the B C and rec eived pr oper me dical ca re (see R

. a t1 4

- 1 5; see also R

. at 314, 316-17). The B oard f

ound that this evidence was re dundant of th e p revious evidence be fore the Secre tary when, in 1976, he ma de the f orfe iture dec ision. W i th reg ard to the e vidence of Mr. Untalan' s illnesses, the Boa rd dete rmined that t he records pr ior to 1976 ref lect that Mr. Unta lan had dy sentery and malaria

as we ll as other disabilities while he wa s detained in the POW camp. See R.

a t 15 ; se e als o R. at 48 , 4 9, 51 . With re g ard to the e vid e nc e of his be lie f t hat he wo uld

have die d in the POW camp unless he joined the BC, the Boa rd found that the records prior to 1976 indicated that the conditions in the POW camp we re inhumane , that the P OWs lacked potable water and suff ere d fr om m a lnutr iti on , a

nd that Mr. Un ta lan pe rc e ive d the POW camps a s "a sy ste ma tic ve ng e anc e to ki ll th e [ P OW s] ." See R. at 15 -1 6; see also R. at 47, 51. The Boa rd furt h er fo u n d t h at d e c is io n ma

k e r s w e r e aw ar e in O c to b e r 1 9 7 6 o f M r
. U n ta la n ' s a s s e rti o n s th a t h e w as " ' forc ed by

neces si ty to tak e an oat h of allegi ance' to the J apan ese gov ernm ent ." See R. at 15 -1 6; se e als o R. at 78-79. Moreove r, to the extent Mr. Untalan packa g es previously known fa cts into an argument that his mens rea wa s n ot pr e vio us ly pr e se nte d, his argume nt fa ils

. Th e pr e se ntatio n o f n e w a rgume nts base d o ne v id e n c e a lr e a dy

o f r e c o r d a t t h e ti me o f

th e p r e v io u s d e c is io nd o e s n o t c o n s ti tute the prese ntation of new e vidence

. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 8. Thus , u po n a re vie w of the re c or d in

its entirety , the Court finds that the Board' s deter mination that no new a

nd materia l evidence has bee n prese nted is plausible, supported by an adequate statement of reasons or ba ses and, ther efor e, ca nnot be said to be c lear ly

err oneous. See 38 U. S.C. §§ 51 08 , 7 10 4( d) (1 ), 72 61 (a )( 4) ; Hersey , su pr a ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.156.

B. I ssues Raised at Or al Argument At or a l argume nt, c ouns e l f

or Mr

. Un ta lan pr e se nte d ne w iss ue s no t pr e vio us ly pr e se nte d to the Court in his bri ef o r i n a motion. Specifica lly , he ar g ued that (1) there is a pending and unadjudicate d claim for c ompensation benef its; (2) the statute and r eg ulations conce rning new a nd materia l evidence do not apply to forfe iture ca ses; and (3) forf eiture pr ocee dings c ould not be ini tiate d unti l th e re is a

n a wa rd of be ne fi ts.5

The Court h as re p ea t ed l y

d i s co u ra gedp ar t i es fr o m ra i s i n g ar gum en t s s u b s eq u en tt o t h e ini tial briefingthat wer e not pre sented in an initial brief to the Court. Se e Carbin o v . W est , 168 F.3d 32, 34 (F ed. Cir. 1999) (" improper or late pre sentation of an issue or argument

. . . ordinarily should not be conside red" ), aff'

g sub nom. Carbino v. Gober , 10 Vet.App. 507, 511 (1997) ( declining to review

argume nt f

ir st r a ise d in

a pp e lla nt' s r e ply br ie f) ; Tubianosa v. Derwinski , 3 Vet.App. 181, 184 (1992) (appe llant "should have develope d and pre sented a ll of his arg uments in his ini tial pleading" ); Fugere v . Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 1 0 3, 105 (1990) ( "A dvancingdiffer ent ar g uments at succe ssive stag es of the appellate process does not serve the intere sts of the parties or the Court. Such a pra ctice hinders the de cision-making proce ss and ra ises the undesira ble sp ec t er of piec emea l liti g ation.")

. The pra ctice of

prese nting new i ssues at oral arg ument is even more discourag ed and unde sirable. See, e .g. , Mc

Fa rli n v. Con se c o S

e rv s. , L. L.C. , 381 F.3d 1251, 1263 (11th Cir. 2004) (" A par ty is not allowed to ra ise at ora l argument a new issue for r eview." ); Piecze nik v. Dy ax Corp. , 265 F.3d 1329, 13 33 (F e d. Cir

. 20 01 ) (" I t is we ll se ttl e d that an a pp e lla nt is no t pe rm itt e d to m a ke ne w a rgume nts that it did no t make in its ope nin g br ie f. " ); Tarpley v. Gre ene , 684 F.2d 1, 7 n.17 ( D.C. Cir. 1982) (" Ora l argument on appea l is not t he prope r time to advanc e new argu m en t s o r l eg al theorie s.")

. Acc ording ly , the issues raise d for the f irst time at oral ar g ument will not be further addre ssed.

III . C ON CL USI ON Acc ording ly , the J une 2, 2003, B oard de cision is AFF I RMED.

HAGEL , Judge , c on c ur

ri ng : I c on c ur fu lly in t he Court ' s d e c isi on, bu t wri te se pa ra te ly to
c omm e nt o n a

ma tte r that I be lie ve is o f g e ne ra l im po rt anc e to c ouns e l a

pp e ari ngbe fo re the Court

. Throug hout its existence, the Court ha s aver ag ed in the neig hborhood of 2,500 a ppeals filed annually

. Ora l argument is order ed in only a ti ny fra ction of t hose ca ses and only when the Court bel iev es t hat do in g so "wi ll mat eri all y ass is t in th e di sp os it io n of [an ] app eal ." W ins lowv . B ro wn , 8 V e t.A pp . 4 69 , 4 71 (1 99 6) . I n this c a se , Mr. Un ta lan adva nc e d only on e a ssi g nme nt o f e rr or in h is br ie f, wh ic h th e Co urt bel ie ve d r a ise d a qu e sti on of su c h s ig nif

ic anc e that th e Court

pr oc e e de d to schedule oral arg ument. Howeve r, at oral arg ument, counsel for Mr. Untalan raised a rg uments that

we re no t br ie fe d, and did

no t di sc us s th e argume nt t hat w a s b ri e fe d unti l he wa s p ro mpt e d to do so6

by the Court. Although Iam awa re that this case wa s not arg ued by the same c ounsel that prepa red Mr . U nta lan' s b ri e f, tha

t do e s n ot d imi nis h th e fa c t th a t r a isi ngne w a rgume nts a t or a l argume nt i s not helpful to the Court, place s a strain on judicial re source s, and depr ives the Court of the f urther

a ssi sta nc e of c ouns e l in

re so lvi nga

qu e sti on in w hic h th e Court

ha s e xpre sse d p art ic ula

r i nte re st.