UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 04-1970
ANTHONY H UN T , 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 De cembe r 13, 2006 ) Anthony Hunt, pro se.
W illiam L . Puchnick

, wi th who m Tim S. McClain, Ge ne ra l Co un se l; R. Ra nd all Cam pb e ll , Assistant Gener al C o u n s el ; and Brian B. Rippel , Deputy Assistant Gener al Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the br ief for the appe llee.
Be fore MOORMAN, DAV I S, and SCHOEL EN, J ud ge s. SCHOEL EN, Judge : The pro se appellant, Anthony Hunt, appea ls an Octobe r 15, 2004, B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (Boa

rd ) d e c isi on

that di smi sse d h is r e qu e st t o r e op e n a pr e vio us ly disallowed psy chiatric -disability claim base d on the submission of new and mate rial evide nce a nd de nie d e nti tle me nt t o v oc a tio na l r e ha bil itatio n s ub si st enc e a llo wa nc e . Re c or d ( R.) a t 1- 10 . T his

app e a l i s t i m e l y an d t h e C o urt h a s j ur i s d i c t i o n t o r e v i e w th e B o ar d d e c i s i o n p ur s u a nt t o 3 8 U. S

. C. §§ 7252(a) an d 7266(a) . At issue in this case is whethe r the statutory time frame for

su bmi tting a Sub sta

nti ve Ap pe a l ma

y be su bje c t to e qu ita

ble tol lin g wh e n a

c la ima nt m isf ile s h is Substantive Appeal with t he Board instead of t he R O wher e his claim orig inated. F or the re asons set forth below, the Court will vacate th e Bo ard's Oc tober 2004 de cision and re mand the matter s for

rea djudication consistent with this decision.

I. F AC TS M r
. H u n t s e r v e d i nt h e U

. S

. A i r

F o r c e f r o m D e c e mb e r 1 9 7 3 t o F e b r u ar y 1 9 7 5

. R

. a t1 4

. In J une 1983, Mr. Hunt filed a se rvice -conne ction claim for a "ne rvous condition," which he a sserted2

fi rs t ma nif e ste d in 19 74

. R. a t 58 . In Se pte mbe r 1 98 3, a VAre g ion a l of

fi c e (R O) de nie d h is c la im. R. at 74. I n Marc h 1994, Mr. Hunt submitt ed a c laim seekingservice connec tion for, amongother t h i n g s , " n e u r o l o g i c a l d i s o r d e r , s e v e r e d e p r e s s i o n , m i g r a i n e s , b l ur r y v i s i o n , g a

p s i nm e m o r

y, dizz iness, unexplainable rag e once trig g ere d," a ll of which he a sserted f irst ma n i fe sted in 1974. R. at 14 1. I n D e c e mbe r 1 99 4, a n RO no tif

ie d h im that hi s cla im fo r d e pr e ssi on wa s p re vio us ly considere d and denie d, and if he wished t o reope n that claim, he would ne ed to submit new and

mate ri a l e vid e nc e . R. a t 14 6. Mr . H un t f ile d a No tic e of

Di sa g re e ment (NOD ), as to his

se rv ic e - c o n n e c t i o n c l a i m f o r a p s y c h i a tr i c d i s o r d e r an d th e R O i s s u e d a S t a t e m e n t o f th e Ca se (SOC) in which the RO noted that "Mr . Hunt has applied f or, and be en denie d, service connec tion for t h e nervous c ondition. . . . [ H]e has no disabilities that are r elated to a ctive military service ." R. at 155. The only

issue listed on this SOC, howe ver, w as entitlement to vocational reha bilitation benef its. R. at 153. I n November

1996, Mr. Hunt re quested that the RO " rec onside r entit lement to [service

connec tion] for [a] nervous [condition] ." R. at 198. Shortly there afte r, the RO issu ed a Supplemental S t atement of the Case (SSOC) on the issue of Mr . Hunt' s entitlement to vocational reha bilitation benefits. R. at 265. I n November 1997, the RO denied Mr . Hunt' s reque st to reopen his service -conne ction claim for a p s y ch i atric disorde r bec ause the evidenc e he submitted wa s "me rely cumulative" of the e vidence of re cord. R. at 315. I n Ju n e 1 9 9 8 , th e B o ar d d e n ie d , a s a

matt e r o f la w , M r
. H un t' s c la im

f o r v o c a ti o n al reha bilitation benefits. The B oard de termined that, be cause Mr. Hunt di d not have a ny disabiliti es that wer e ser

vice c onnecte d, he di d n o t "me et the basic prer equisite leg al cr iteria for Chapter 31 [vocational rehabilitation] benef its." R. at 368. Additionally , the B oard c oncluded that it lacke d juris diction over his re quest to reope n his previously disallowed ser

vice- connec tion claim for a ps y c hiatr ic dis or de r b e c a us e Mr. H un t ha d n ot ye t f ile d a n N OD a s to the No ve mbe r 1 99 7 RO decision addr essing that claim. R. at 369. InAp r i l 1 9 9 9 , M r
. H un ta p p e a l e dt h e J un e 1 9 9 8 B o ar d d e c i s i o nt o t h e C o urt

. In Au g us t 19 99 , th e Cou

rt c on c lud e d th a t th e RO had den ied th e ap pe lla nt' s c la im t o r e op e n in Dec ember

1994, that the appe llant ha d filed a timely NOD a s to that decision in J anuar y 1995, and that the RO h ad n o t i s s u ed an SOC as to his servic e-c onnection cla im for a psychiatric disorder.3

R. at 421. The Court vac ated the B oard de cision and re manded the c ase f or issuance of an SOC as to his service -conne ction claim for a psy chiatric disorder. Id . The Court also orde red r eadjudication of the vocational reha

bilitation claim following resolution of the pending claim for service

connec tion for a menta l disorder. Id

. I n October

2000, the B oard r emande d the ca se to the RO, instructing the RO to issue an SOC reg ardingthe Dec ember

1994 deter

mination that new and materia l evidence had not bee n submitt ed to r e op e n th e se rv ic e -c onne c tio n c la im f or a ps y c hiatr ic dis a

bil ity . R. a t 47 3, 50 9. Th e B oa rd a lso instructed Mr. Hunt that onc e the RO issued the SOC, in order to preser ve his appe llate rig hts, he must then file a timely Substantive A ppeal. The RO issued the SOC on No v em b er 1 5 , 2 0 00. R. at 481. Mr. Hunt's Substantive Appea l was postmarke d J anuar y 11, 2001, and date -stamped a s
rec eived by

the B oard on J anuar

y 17, 2001. R. at 486- 96. The Boa rd then mailed the Substantive Appea l to the RO from which the c laim orig inated. On Februa ry 8, 2001, the RO notified him it was forwa rding his appea l to the Boa rd for adjudication. R. at 505. On April 25, 2001, the B oard issued a decision (1) dismiss ing Mr . Hunt 's appea l of the Dec ember

1994 denial of his re quest to reope n his service -conne ction claim on the basis that he fai l ed t o fi l e a timely

Substantive Appeal, a

nd (2) de nying, a s a matter of law, his claim for vocational r ehabilitation benef its. R. at 510-12. Mr. Hunt a g ain appe aled to the Court. R. at 543. On May 7, 2002, the par

ties filed a joint motion for remand (J MR), which the Court gr anted. R. at 54 3 , 5 5 1

. T h e mo ti o nin d ic a te d th a t t h e Su b s ta n ti v e Ap p e a l w a s p o s tm ar k e d on J anuar y 1 1 , 2 0 0 1 , within the 60-day appea l period fr om the issuance of the Novembe r 15, 2000, SOC, and filed with the B oard on Ja n u ar y 17, 2001. R. at 546. The motion stated that the B oard should consider whe ther the tim el y p o s tmarked Substantive Appe al that was f iled with the Boa

rd constituted a timely

filed Substantive Appea l. R. at 547. I n J uly 2003, the Board remande d the issue to the RO to determine whether Mr. Hunt' s filing the Sub sta

nti ve Ap pe a l w iththe B oa rd rathe r t ha n th e RO re su lte d in

a ti mel y fi lin g purs ua

nt t o 38 C.F.R. § 20.300 (2003). The RO deter mined that, beca

use Mr. Hunt mailed hi s S ubstantive Ap pe a l to the B oa

rd ra the r tha n the RO , his ap pe a l wa s n ot t ime ly fi le d a nd tha t th e de c isi on

be c ame final. R. at 610-11.4

Mr . H un t ti me ly

a pp e a le d th e RO ' s deci si on to the B oa rd . R. a t 61 9- 27 , 6 30 , 1 -1 0. I n it s October 15, 2004, decision, the B oard a cknowledg ed the pa rties' co nclusion in the J MR that the appellant' s Substantive Appeal was mailed on J anuar y 11, 2001; howeve r, t he B oard de termined that beca use Mr. Hunt mailed the appea l to the Boa rd instead of the ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.302(b) (2004), his a ppeal was not timely filed. R. at 7. The B oard the n dismiss ed the req u es t t o reope n based on la ck of jurisdiction, and de nied the cla im for vocational reha bilitation be ne fi ts o n th e ba sis that Mr . H un t di d n ot h ave any se rv ic e -c onne c te d d isa

bil it ies , w hic h is a
s tatuto r y r e qu ir e me n t f

o r v o c a ti o n a l r e h a

b il it a ti o nb e n e f

it s u n d e r 3 8 U

. S. C. § § 3 1 0 1 an d

3102. R. at 9-10. On a pp e a l, M r. Hunt m ake s thr e e a sse rt ion s of e rr or . F ir st, he c on te nd s th a t by ma ili nghis Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l to the Boar d rathe r t ha n th e RO , V A h a d a c tua l or c on str uc tiv e no tic e of

his intent to a ppeal, and the date of rec eipt of his Substantive Appea l a t the RO should not c ontrol the Boa rd' s finding a s to whether his a ppeal wa s timely

. Ap p ell ant' s I nformal B rief ( App. Inf. B r.) at 2; Suppl em ental (Suppl.) R. at 1 (c opy of enve lope containingSubstantive Appeal, postmarke d J anuar y 11, 2001). Second, he as serts that VA f ailed to provide him with evidenc e he r equeste d, mai n l y h i s claims file with servic e re cords, a nd that VA fa iled to obtain evidence that he had reque sted VA obtain. F inally , he asse rts that the Board' s interpre tation of chapter 31, title 38 of the U.S. Code, is errone ous and he is entitled to vocational reha bilitation benefits. I n response , the Secr etar

y maintains that a re mand is warr anted r eg ardingthe timeliness of the appe llant's Substantive Appe al; sp e c if ic a ll y , h e a sserts that the B oard' s decision incorr ectly stated that the enve lope containingthe app el l an t 's Substantive Appeal wa s not of rec ord, and thus, the Boa rd' s conclusions are not a dequate for judicial revie w. Secre tary ' s Br ief (Sec ' y Br .) at 10-11. T he Secre tary further argues that the B oard' s decision that the appe llant was not entitled to vocational reha bilitation assis tance should be aff irmed bec ause the appellant is not service connec ted for a ny disability as re quired by

statute. Sec' y

Br . at 12.5 II. AN AL YSI S A. Eq uit a ble To lli ngand

Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a ls Section 7105 provides that "[a]ppellate revie w wil l be ini tiated by an [NOD] and completed by a [S] ubstantive [A] ppeal after [ an S OC] i s furnished[.]" 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a). " Such notice, and appea ls, must be in writing and be filed with the ac tivity which ente red the deter

mination with which disag ree ment is ex p re s sed (he reina fter r efe rre d to as ' the ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction') ." 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( b) (1 ). To c omp le te the a pp e a l pr oc e ss, the c la ima nt m us t f ile " a fo rm a l a pp e a l" within 60 day s from the date the SOC is mailed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3). The 60-day period " may be e xte n d e d

f o r a r e a s o n a b le p e r io d

o nr e qu e s t f

o r g o o d c a u s e s h o w n
. . . . T h e a g e n c y o f o r igina l jur isd ic tio n ma

y c los e the c a se fo r f

a ilure to r e sp on d a ft e r r e c e ipt of the [SOC], but qu e sti on s a s to ti mel in ess or ad equ acy

of r esp on se sha ll be det erm in ed b y th e Boardof V ete rans ' Appe als ." Id. The Secre tary , pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7105, promulgated regulations at 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.300, 20.302(b), whic hg o v e r

nth e f il in g o f Su b s ta n ti v e Ap p e a ls

. T h e s e p r o v is io n s mi r r o r th o s e s e t f

o rth in the statute. Whether the statutory deadline for filing a Substantive A ppeal is subjec t to equitable tolling is a qu e sti on of law th at the Court re vie ws de no vo . 3 8 U .S. C. § 72 61 (a )( 1) ; see Sm ith v. Gober , 14 Vet.App. 227, 230 ( 2000) (statingthat the Court revie ws questions of l aw de novo without any de fe re nc e to t

he B oa rd ' s c on c lus ion s) ; cf. Bailey v . Principi , 351 F.3d 1381, 1384 ( Fe d. Cir. 2003) (holding that issue of whether the 120-day judicial-appe al period pre scribed by 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for se eking j udicial re view of a Boa rd dec ision is s ubject to equitable tollingis a leg al question). Ba sed on the following , we c onclude that e quitable tolling is applica ble in such ca ses. I n Ir win v . D e pa rtm e nt o

f V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 498 U.S. 89 (1990), the Supreme Court decided

on a " g e ne ra l r

ule to g ov e rn the a

pp lic a bil ity of e qu ita

ble tol lin g in law sui ts ag a ins t th e [F e de ra l] Gov ernm ent ." Id . at 94. The Supre me Court held t hat, eve n though statutory time limi ts gove rning suits aga inst the Fede ral g overnme nt involve cong ressional wa ivers of sovereig n immunit y , which

wer e to be strictly

construed, a llowing the r ule of e quitable tolling to apply t o suits aga inst the F e d e r a l G o v e r

n m e n ti nt h e s am e m an n e r th a t i t a p p l i e d i np r i v a t e s u i t s , " am o un t e d t o l i t t l e , i f

an y, bro aden in g of t he co ngres s i o n a l wai ver. " Id . at 95 . T he Sup re me Cou rt a lso he ld t

hat e qu ita ble tolling of statutory time limit s for bringingsuits aga inst the Fede ral g overnme nt would be allowed6

in car efully

presc ribed c ircumstance s such as whe re " the claimant has ac tively pursued his judicial

reme dies by filing a defe ctive plea ding dur ing the statutory period, or ( 2) whe re the [claimant] has b ee n induced or

tricked by

his adversa

ry ' s misconduct into allowing the f iling dea dline to pass." Ir win , 4 9 8 U

. S

. a t9 6

. F i n a l l y, the Supreme Court c larified that principles of e quitable tolling do not

ex ten d t o "wh at i s at bes t a gard en v ari ety cla im of ex cus abl e negl ect ." Id . at 96. I n Ba ile yv . W est , 160 F.3d 1360, 1367 (F ed. Cir. 1998), the U .S. Court of Appeals for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) held that, in lig ht of the Supreme Court' s holding in Ir win , it was

overr uling previous case s in which it had held that equitable tolling was una vailable to toll the 120-day statutory time limi t set forth in 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) for seekingrevie w in this Court of final Boa rd dec isions. Id . In a ser ie s of sub se qu e nt ca se s, the F e de ra l Circ uit he ld that the tim e lim it i n section 7266(a ) would be e quitably tolled wher e the appellant mis filed hi s Notice of Appea l (NOA)

. For example, in Jaquay v . Principi , 304 F.3d 1276 (F ed. Cir. 2002) , the Fe dera l Circ uit considered whether equitable tollin g ap p lies when a veter an misfiles a motion for re consideration of a B oard decision at the R O i nstead of the Board. I n our under lying de cision, Jaquay v . Principi , 11 Vet.App. 67 (1998), we deter

mined that equitable tolling did not apply when a claimant timely filed a motion for r econsid er at i o n of a B oard de cision, but filed it with the ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction rather tha nw it hth e B o ar d , a s r e qu ir e d

b y 3 8 C. F

. R. § 2 0

. 1 0 0 1 ( b )

. Inr e a c h in g th is d e te r mi n a ti o n , the Court discussed 38 C.F.R. § 20.1001(b), wh ich mandate s that claimants file a motion for

re c on sid e ratio n w iththe B oa rd , a nd c on c lud e d th a t, b e c a

us e the a uth or izin g statut e did no t e xpre ssl y addre ss where such motions should be se nt, the Secre tary ' s actions in regulating w ere permissible, and the r esult rea ched w as re asonable

. Jaquay , 11 Vet.App. at 70. On a pp e a l, t he F e de ra l Cir c uit

state d th a t " [i]n th e c ontex t of th e no n- a dv e rs ari a l, pate rn al i s t i c, u n i qu el y

p ro -c l ai m an tv et er an s ' co mp en s at i o ns y s t em , an d co n s i s t en twi thour dec ision in Bailey , [160 F.3d 1370] , the ava ilability of equitable tolling pursuant to Ir win [ v. De p't of Veterans Af fai rs , 4 9 8 U

. S. 8 9 , 9 5 ( 1 9 9 0 ) ] s h o u ld b e inte r p r e te d li b e r a ll y w it hr e s p e c t t o f

il in g s d ur in g the

no n-ad vers ari al s tage o f t he v ete ran s ' ben efi ts pro cess ." Jaquay, 304 F.3d. at 1288. The F eder al Circuit was per suaded, in pa rt, bec ause " [m ]i sfiling cases within the vete rans' [appellate] sy stem are
un lik e thety

pi cal lat e-fi li ng case s w here th e li mi tat io ns peri odex pi res befo re t he w ou ld -be c lai mant s perf orm any act io n to pres erve th eir legal ri ghts ." Id

. For these re asons, the F eder al Circuit held that7

"the diligenc e re quirement is more relaxed for cases where the claimant filed a pleading in the wrong place as opposed to filing it afte r a statutory deadline. .

. . Thefil ing of t hemi sd ire c te d p ap e r it

se lf

s a t i s f ies the diligencerequireme nt as a matter of law ." Id. a t 12 87 -8 8 ( e mph a sis a dd e d) . T hu s, relying on the standard set forth in Ir win , su pra , the Feder al Circuit applied equitable tolling wher e the appe llant misfiled his m otion for re consideration of a Boa rd decision with the RO from whic h his claim orig inated instead of with the Boa

rd, as r equire d by

VA re g ulation. I n Jaquay, the location for submissi on of a motion for r econside ration of a Boa rd dec ision

was specifie d in a VA regulation. I n Sa nta na -V

e ne ga s v. Principi , 314 F. 3d 1293 ( Fe d. Cir. 2002), the F e de ra l Cir c uit extended the holding in Jaquay , to a llo w e qu ita ble tol lin g wh e re the c la ima nt, contra ry to statute, filed his NOA to this Court with the RO from which his c laim or iginated. The F e de ra l Cir c uit

he ld t hat " [i]n the c on te xt o f the no n- a dv e rs ari a l, m anif e stl y pr o- c la ima

nt v e te ra ns ' benef its sy stem,

. . . misfiling a notice of appe al at the VA RO from which the claim orig inated shows that the claimant se eks re dress be fore the Secr etar y despite the c laimant' s mistaken belief as to the

ac cu ra cy o f t h e f i l i n g l o ca t i o nan d

d o es n o ti n v o l v e 'agar d en v ar i et y cl ai m o f ex cu s ab l e n egl ec t

. '" Id

. at 1 2 9 7 -9 8 (q u o t i n g Ir win , 498 U.S. at 96). I n Brandenburg v. Princ ipi , 3 71 F .3 d 1 36 2, 13 64 (F e d. Cir . 2 00 4) , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit a g a in extended the hol ding in Jaquay , to a llo w f or e qu ita ble tol lin g wh e re the c la ima nt, a lso c on tr ary

to statut e , fil e d his NO A with the B oa rd

. Th e F e de ra l Circ uit he ld that "d e te rm ini ng wh e the r e qu ita

ble tolling applie[s] in eac h case [does] not hinge on [where the document is filed]. I nstead, the f ocus [i s] whether the ve tera

n ' exercised due diligenc e in p re s er ving his leg al rig hts' a nd whether

' the

ve te ra n' s in te nti on

is c le ar a nd the [VA ] is put

on no tic e of his int e nti on

to s e e k f ur the r r e vie w o f h is claim.' . . . For

these purpose s, there is no meaning ful differ ence betwee n the [RO] and the [B]oard." Bran de nb ur

g , 3 7 1 F. 3 d at 1 3 6 4 (q u o t i n g Jaquay , 304 F.3d at 1287, and Bailey , 351 F.3d at 1385). I t is clear f

rom the law develope d by the Fe dera l Circuit that in cases involving a n appellant who m isfile s h is N O A a t a p la c e o th e r

th anth is Co urt, thr e e c r it e r ia mu s t b e s a ti s f

ie d b e fore

e qu ita ble tol lin g may

be a llo we d: ( 1) the c la ima nt m us t ha ve e xer c ise d d

ue dil ig e nc e in p ur su inghis leg al rig hts; (2) the misfiled document mus t reve al a clear intention by

the claimant to see k further revie w; and (3) the misfiled document must put VA on notice of the claimant' s intention. See B randenburg, supra; Jaquay , 304 F.3d at 1287-89.8

We rec og nize that the deadline f or filing Substantive Appeals invol ves a statutory provision differ ent from the one g overning the deadline for filing NOAs in this Court. Accor dingly , it is not a for eg one conc lus io n

th a t the deadline f

or Substantive Appea ls should be subject to equitable tolling simply beca use this Court and the Fe dera l Circ uit have rec og nized that the N OA dea dline may be

su bje c t to e qu ita

ble tol lin g . N on e the le ss, we c on c lud e , ju st as th e Federa l Cir c uit c on c lud e d in Bailey , 160 F.3d. at 1367, with reg ard to 38 U.S.C. § 7266, that ther e i s n o t h i n g in the limit ed leg islative history

of 38 U.S.C. § 7105( d)(3) that would prec lude equitable tolling in this i nstance

. Cf. Rowell v. Principi , 4 Vet.App. 9, 17 ( 1993) (notingthe discre tionary languag e of se ction 7105(d) and holding that "f

ailure to f ile a timely [S ubstantive] Appeal does not automatica lly fore close a

n appea l, rende r a c laim final, or depr ive the [Boar d] of jurisdiction"). Thus, the same principles that g uided t he Feder al C ircuit in allowing equitable toll ing of the deadline f

or filing appea ls to thi s Court apply with equal for ce to tollin g t he dea dline for f iling Substantive Appeals. In fac t, the circ umstances supporting t h e application of equitable tolling pr inc ipl e s are e ve n mo re c omp e lli nghe re (whe re the fi lin g wa s with in the same a g e nc y a s th e statut e mandates) than in the Jaquay l i n e o f ca s es , where the filingwas dire cted to VA r ather than to a

se pa rate , in de pe nd e nt F e de ra l a pp e llate c ourt

. F ur the r, a llo wi nge qu ita

ble tol li ng of th e de a dli ne fo r f ili ngthe Sub sta

nti ve Ap pe a l is in ke e pin g wi th t

he Court ' s r e c og nit ion

of the no na dv e rs ari a l, u

niq ue ly pr o- ve te ra

n c la ims pr oc e ss within VA. Cf. Barrett v. Nicholson , 466 F.3d 1038, 1044 ( Fe d. C i r. 2 0 0 6 ) (st ating that "' the importance of sy stemic fair ness and the a

ppear ance o f fa irness ca

rries great weig ht'" within the

n o n ad v er s ar i al v et er a n s b e n e fi t s s y s t em (q u o t i n g Ho dge v . W est , 155 F.3d 1356, 1363 (F ed. Cir. 1998)) a

nd that "[t]he [ G]overnment' s interest in veter ans ca ses is not that it shall win, but rathe r that j ustice shall be done")

. Clearly , the Board' s treatment of Mr. Hunt' s Substantive Appeal as unt imely beca

use i t was misfiled within VA ig nores the nona dversa rial, pate rnalistic nature of the claims proce ss within VA. Ex tending the principles of equitable tolling to the Subst antive Appe al de a dli ne is c on sis te nt w iththe F e de ra l Cir c uit ' s p ro no un c e me nt i nJaquay that "the availability of equitable tolling pur suant to Ir win should be interpre ted libera lly with respec t to filings duringthe

no nad vers ari al s tage o f t he v ete rans ' benef it s p roce ss ." Jaquay, 304 F.3d at 1288.9

Our c onclusion that equitable toll ing is applicable to the S ubstantive Appea l filing de adline is buttressed also by

the fa ct that when the Fe dera l Circ uit r eac hed its holding in Jaquay , it did so in l ig ht o f t

he c ano n of statut or

y c on str uc tio n that sta tut e s invo lvi ngwa ive rs of so ve re ig n immun ity

ar e to b e s tr ic tl y

c o n s tr ued

. Her e, the statutory

deadline f

or filing a Substantive Appea l does not implicate a wa iver of sove reig n immunit y ; there fore , this Court i s not bound by the nar row standa

rd

o f s t at utory

interpre tation that the Fe dera l Circuit face d in Jaquay

. A c c o r d i n g l y , g i v e nthe se considerations, there is no rea son for this Court to h o l d t h at the statutory filing de adline for Substantive Appeals is not subject to equitable tolling. There is no factua l dispute that Mr. Hunt' s Substantive Appeal wa s rec eived by the B oard within the filing pe riod. The Boa rd considere d Mr. Hunt' s Substantive Appeal untimely beca use of his error in misfili ng it with the Boa rd, and beca

use the Boa

rd could not loc ate the envelope in which it was mailed to c onfirm the J anuar y 11, 2001, postmark, althoug h the postmark date was c oncede d in the J MR. Since the Boa rd' s decision, howeve r, the envelope has bee n located a nd the re cord on appea l has been supplemented. See Suppl. R. at 5 (enve lope, addr essed to the B oard, postmar ked J anuar y 11, 2001). The Sec reta ry , in his brief, has c o ncede d that the appe al was ma iled, and postmarked on January

11, 2001. See Se c ' y

B r. a t 7; see also Aue r v. Robbins , 519 U.S. 452, 461-62 (1997) ( r elying on litig ation documents to deter mine ag ency ' s position). Thus, it appea rs the re levant fac ts are no long er in disput e, an d t h e C o urt may take judicial notice of the January 11, 2001, po st mar ked env elo pe th at con tain e d th e a pp e lla nt' s Su bs ta nti ve Ap pe a l. See S mi t h ( Brady) v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 235, 238 ( 1991) (" Courts may take judicial notice of fa c ts n ot s ub

je c t to re a so na

ble dis pute ." ); see also Crain v. Principi , 17 Vet.App. 182, 189 ( 2003) (takingjudicial notice of Z ip Code numbers for differ ent cities, as available on the U.S. Postal Service ' s Web site). Her e, the pr ere quisites for the application of equitable tol ling have bee n satisfied. The diligenc e re quirement wa s met when Mr. H unt misfiled his S ubstantive Appea l with the Boa rd instead of with the RO that first addre ssed his claim. The B oard, r ecognizi ng it as such, forw arde d i tt o t h at R O f

o r t h e ap p ro p ri at e p ro ce s s i n g. T hu s , i t i s cl ea r t o th e C o urt , b as edo nth e B o ar d 's fo rw ard ingof

the do c ume nt, tha

t V A und e rs too d M r. Hu

nt' s inte nt in fi lin g the do c ume nt – th a t is , "to seekfur th er rev i e w o f [ hi s] cla im ." Bailey , 3 51 F .3 d at 13 85 ; se e Bran de nb ur g , 371 F.3d10

a t 13 64

. F ina lly , Mr

. Hunt' s Sub sta nti ve Ap pe a l, tho ug h mis fi le d, put VA on no tic e of his int e nt t o seek f urther r eview of

the RO decision. Thus, the principle of equitable tolling i s applicable here

. Fur thermore, b as ed o n the fore g oing a naly sis, we nee d not remand f or the B oard to a

pply the principle in the first instance. Given our deter mination that equitable tolling a pplies in this i nstance , and because the re levant fa cts are no longe r in dispute, we will re verse the B oard' s determination that Mr. Hunt' s Substantive Appeal as to the RO' s re fusal to re open his servic e-c onnection cla im for a psy chiatric disability

was not timely

filed. B . E nti tle me nt t o V oc a tio na l Re ha bil itatio n B e ne fi ts Al tho ug h th e Se c re tary

ma int a ins that th e B oa rd ' s d e c isi on reg ard inge nti tle me nt t o vocational r ehabilitation benef its s h ould be af

firmed, the Court c annot ag ree . The issue of entitlement to vocational rehabilitation benef its is dependent upon whethe r the B oard r eopens a nd g rants the a

ppellant' s claim for se rvice connec tion for a psy chiatric disorder. There fore , these issues are "in ex tr icabl y

in ter tw in ed. " Ba

gwe ll v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A pp. 3 37 , 3 39 -4 0 ( 19 96 ); see Harris v. Derwinski , 1 Vet.App. 180, 183 ( 1991). Ac cording ly , t h e C o urt also will vacate the Boa rd' s denial of voc ational re habilitation benefits a n d re mand the matter for r eadjudication consistent with this decision. Up on rema nd, Mr. Hunt is fre e to ar g ue this issue, and pre sent any additional evidenc e and a rguments to the Boa

rd, and the Boa

rd is require d to consider them. See Kay v. Principi , 1 6 V e t.A pp . 5 29 , 5 34 (2 00 2) ; Kut

sc he ro us k yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 369, 372 (1999) (per curiam order) . The Sec reta ry is ex pecte d to provide expedit i o u s t reatment of these matter s pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 5109B, 7112.

III . C ON CL USI ON After consideration of the appe llant's and the Secre tary ' s briefs, a nd a re view of the rec ord on appeal, the B oard' s October 15, 2004, decision is REVERSED to the ex tent that it determined Mr. Hunt did not timely

file his S u bstantive Appea l of the RO' s ref usal to reope n his claim for service connec tion for a psychiatric disability , VACATED to the e x tent it determined that Mr. H unt was not entitled to voca tional reha bilitation benefits, and both matters ar e REMANDED for

rea djudication consistent with this decision.