NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals 

for the Federal Circuit ______________________

LOUANN WOLFE,

Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 

VETERANS AFFAIRS,

Respondent-Appellee

______________________

2020-2317

______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for 

Veterans Claims in No. 17-519, Chief Judge Margaret C. 

Bartley, Judge Coral Wong Pietsch, Judge Joseph L. 

Falvey, Jr.

______________________

Decided: October 26, 2021

______________________

HAROLD HAMILTON HOFFMAN, III, Veterans Legal Advocacy Group, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant. Also represented by MEGAN EILEEN HOFFMAN.

 ASHLEY AKERS, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil 

Division, United States Department of Justice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also represented 

by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, CLAUDIA BURKE, MARTIN F.

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 1 Filed: 10/26/2021
2 WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH

HOCKEY, JR., JOSHUA E. KURLAND; JONATHAN KRISCH, Y.

KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.

______________________

Before PROST, REYNA, and STOLL, Circuit Judges.

STOLL, Circuit Judge.

LouAnn Wolfe appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims to dismiss her appeal from the 

Chairman of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ denial of her 

motion for reconsideration under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000. Because Ms. Wolfe’s request for Board reconsideration does 

not satisfy any of the bases for reconsideration, we affirm.

BACKGROUND

James Wolfe served in the U.S. Marine Corps from 

1967 to 1969 and legally married Ms. Wolfe on February 4, 

2010, after having lived together for ten years. In May 

2010, Mr. Wolfe divorced another woman based on his belief that he may have been previously married to her. 

Mr. Wolfe passed away on August 9, 2010, and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) informed his estate of the 

potential benefits available to his eligible survivors. In October 2010, Ms. Wolfe submitted her claim for dependency 

and indemnity compensation, death pension, and accrued 

benefits. The VA denied Ms. Wolfe’s claim—citing 

38 C.F.R. § 3.54(b)(2)—because “a spouse (whether with a 

marriage certificate, or as common law) must have been 

‘married’ to the veteran for one year or more prior to his 

death in order to establish her entitlement to death benefits.” J.A. 315. The VA determined that Mr. and 

Ms. Wolfe’s marriage occurred only after his May 2010 divorce, and therefore they were not married for the requisite 

one year.

Ms. Wolfe appealed to the Board, arguing that 

Mr. Wolfe was not, in fact, previously married and 

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 2 Filed: 10/26/2021
WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH 3

submitting an unsigned marriage license as evidence. In 

May 2014, the Board determined that Ms. Wolfe was not 

eligible for benefits as a surviving spouse because “the probative credible evidence of record reflects that the appellant and the Veteran did not enter into a common law 

marriage until his previous marriage was dissolved on May 

10, 2010,” and thus “the couple was not married for at least 

one year prior to the Veteran’s death.” J.A. 42. In June 

2016, Ms. Wolfe sought reconsideration of the Board’s

May 2014 decision. Ms. Wolfe provided a copy of a December 2014 State of Oklahoma order vacating the divorce decree from Mr. Wolfe’s purported previous marriage, 

explaining that Mr. Wolfe was fraudulently induced into 

believing that he was married. J.A. 130. Ms. Wolfe argued 

that the Board’s decision was “based on fraudulent documents created by the fraudulent acts that were out of the 

control of the veteran or the claimant.” J.A. 128–29.

The Board Chairman denied reconsideration because

38 C.F.R. § 20.10001 permits reconsideration in only three 

circumstances: (a) upon allegation of obvious error of fact 

or law; (b) upon discovery of new evidence in the form of 

relevant records or reports of the service department concerned; or (c) upon allegation that an allowance of benefits 

by the Board has been materially influenced by false or 

fraudulent evidence submitted by or on behalf of the appellant. The Chairman explained that § 20.1000(a), (b), and 

(c) were not satisfied because: (a) the Board weighed the 

evidence in the record at the time; (b) the new evidence vacating the divorce did not consist of service department records; and (c) there was no allowance of benefits in this case. 

J.A 32–33.

1 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000 was effective until February 

2019 when it was redesignated as § 20.1001. VA Claims 

and Appeals Modernization, 84 Fed. Reg. 190, 191 (Jan. 18, 

2019).

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 3 Filed: 10/26/2021
4 WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH

Ms. Wolfe appealed the denial of reconsideration to the

Veterans Court, asserting among other things that the 

Board Chairman did not have discretion to deny reconsideration where a benefits denial was based on fraud. 

J.A. 5–7. The Veterans Court concluded that because benefits denied due to fraud are not specifically identified as

changed circumstances under § 20.1000, it did not have jurisdiction to review the denial of her motion for reconsideration. Ms. Wolfe appeals the Veterans Court’s decision. 

We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7292(a).

DISCUSSION

We may “decide all relevant questions of law” in an appeal from a decision of the Veterans Court. Anania 

v. McDonough, 1 F.4th 1019, 1022 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting

38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1)). We review the Veterans Court’s 

legal determinations de novo. Id.

Ms. Wolfe raises two narrow issues on appeal. First, 

she argues that § 20.1000(c) is an unlawful interpretation

of 38 U.S.C. § 7103, the statutory provision granting the 

Board authority to reconsider a decision, because Congress 

intended the VA to correct decisions based on fraud in all 

instances, not just in those instances where benefits are 

granted based on fraud. Section 7103, titled “Reconsideration; correction of obvious errors,” states:

(a) The decision of the Board determining a matter 

under section 7102 of this title is final unless the 

Chairman orders reconsideration of the decision in 

accordance with subsection (b). Such an order may 

be made on the Chairman’s initiative or upon motion of the claimant.

(b) (1) Upon the order of the Chairman for reconsideration of the decision in a case, the 

case shall be referred—

(A) in the case of a matter originally decided by a single member of 

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 4 Filed: 10/26/2021
WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH 5

the Board, to a panel of not less 

than three members of the Board; 

or

(B) in the case of a matter originally decided by a panel of members of the Board, to an enlarged 

panel of the Board.

(2) A panel referred to in paragraph 

(1) may not include the member, or any 

member of the panel, that made the decision subject to reconsideration.

(3) A panel reconsidering a case under this 

subsection shall render its decision after 

reviewing the entire record before the 

Board. The decision of the panel shall be 

made by a majority vote of the members of 

the panel. The decision of the panel shall 

constitute the final decision of the Board.

(c) The Board on its own motion may correct an obvious error in the record, without regard to 

whether there has been a motion or order for reconsideration.

Id.

We are not persuaded. Section 7103 does not mandate

the circumstances under which the Board must order reconsideration. While the title includes the phrase “correction of obvious errors,” the body of the provision does not 

delineate the meaning of “obvious errors.” As such, the 

statute leaves a gap for the agency to fill, and the VA has 

discretion to enumerate the circumstances under which the 

Board will grant reconsideration. See Chevron U.S.A., Inc. 

v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 843–44 (1984).

We are required under Chevron to “defer[] to the VA’s reasonable interpretation of a statutory provision . . . when 

the law leaves ‘a gap for an agency to fill.’” Gallegos 

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 5 Filed: 10/26/2021
6 WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH

v. Principi, 283 F.3d 1309, 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (quoting

Chevron, 467 U.S. at 843).

Ms. Wolfe next asserts that even if the regulation is 

statutory gap filling, the VA must not fill the gap in a way 

that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with the law, as it did here. In 

particular, Ms. Wolfe asserts that “§ 20.1000(c) is contrary 

to law because it is not pro-claimant.” J.A. 15; see Appellant’s Br. 15, 18. We are not persuaded. As we have previously explained, “we must take care not to invalidate 

otherwise reasonable agency regulations simply because 

they do not provide for a pro-claimant outcome in every imaginable case.” Sears v. Principi, 349 F.3d 1326, 1331–32 

(Fed. Cir. 2003). While section (c) is not in every circumstance pro-claimant, the regulation as a whole is generally 

consistent with the pro-claimant policy, offering rehearing 

for the benefit of the veteran in circumstances including 

obvious factual error, which Ms. Wolfe did not preserve on 

appeal.

Finally, Ms. Wolfe asserts that the Veterans Court misinterpreted § 20.1000 by holding that its list of reasons for 

reconsideration in subsections (a), (b), and (c) are exhaustive; she argues that the Board may allow reconsideration 

in circumstances other than those so specified. We disagree. The regulation is clear on its face—§ 20.1000 authorizes reconsideration in only three specific 

circumstances: (1) obvious legal or factual error; (2) new 

and material service department records; or (3) false or 

fraudulent evidence influencing an allowance of benefits.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons above, we affirm the decision of the 

Veterans Court.

AFFIRMED

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 6 Filed: 10/26/2021
WOLFE v. MCDONOUGH 7

COSTS

No costs.

Case: 20-2317 Document: 48 Page: 7 Filed: 10/26/2021