UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 00-1263
R OB E R T K. C LARK , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , 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 June 14, 2001 )

Gordon W

. Sargeant

and W ill iam W . M c Le mo re (non-attorney prac titioner), both of Austin, Te xas, we re on

the ple a din g s f

or the a pp e lla nt.
J o h n H

. Thompson , A c tin g Ge ne ra l Co un se l; Ro n G arv in , A ssi sta nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Tho ma s A . M

c Lau gh lin , Special Assi s t ant to the Assistant Gene ral Counsel; and Crist ine D. Sensem an , all of Washington, D.C., we re on the pleading s for the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY and G REENE, Judges

. KRAMER, Chief Judge : On J une 30, 2000, the a ppellant filed, throug h counsel, a Notice of Ap pe a l ( NO A) fr om a

June 29 , 1 99 9, B oa

rd of Ve te ra

ns ' Ap pe a ls (B oa

rd or B VA ) d e c isi on

tha t, inter alia, de nied his claim for a n eff ective date prior to F ebrua ry 27, 1995, for the a

war d of ser

vice

connec tion for asthmatic bronc hitis. The appellant' s NOA was filed wit h the C ourt 367 day s after the date stamped on the B oard' s J une 1999 dec isio n
. On September 8, 2000, the Secr etar

y filed a mot ion to d ism iss the a

pp e a l f or la c k o f j ur isd ic tio n b e c a us e the a pp e lla nt f a ile d to fi le a

tim e ly NOA. F or the re asons that follow, the Court will g rant the Secre tary ' s motion and will dismiss the appellant' s appea l for lac k of jurisdiction.2 I. BACKG ROUND On Octobe r 17, 2 000, the appe llant, pursuant to a Court orde r, filed a response to the Secre tary ' s motion t o dismiss . I n his response , the appellant argued that the S ecr etar y ' s contention that no tic e of

the June 19 99 B oa

rd de c isi on wa s ma ile d to him on June 29 , 19 99 , wa s " c on tr a ry to the evidenc e of r ecor d in the claims file." Response at 1. The appellant asser ted that the B VA had

c on c e de d th a t it

ma ile d n oti c e of

its June 19 99 de c isi on

to h im o n May 8, 20 00 , an d a tta c he d to his response a copy

of a letter from the Boa

rd that he asser

ted contained that conce ssion. Ex hibit 1. The appellant r equeste d that t h e C o u rt deny the Secr etar

y ' s motion t o dismiss beca use his NOA wa s t i m el y fi l ed , wi t h i n 1 2 0 d ay s af

t er t h e M ay 8 , 2 0 0 0 , d at e o f m ai l i n g. The Court, on Oc tober 25, 2000, order ed the Sec reta ry to file a pre liminary

rec ord evide ncing that notice of the J une 29, 1999, Boa rd decision was mailed to the appellant a nd his repre sentative pursuant to the re quirements of 38 U .S.C. § 7104(e)

. On November 20, 2000, the Secr etar y filed a response to the Court or der to w hich he attache d the decla ration of Na

ncy D. Stackhouse, D irec tor of the Administrative Servic e of the Boa rd. Ms. Stackhouse state d in her de clar ation that: (1) althoug h the apar

tment numbe r that the Boa rd used to ma il notice of its June 1999 decision on the date of that decision was incorre ct, there is no evidenc e that the notice was returne d as undeliver able; (2) a VA reg ional office (RO) re ceive d a memora ndum from the Amer ican L eg ion (AL ), the appellant' s repr esenta tive, on April 27, 2000, that "se t f orth the appellant' s contention that he did not

rec eive a copy of the B oard' s J une 29, 1999, dec ision unti l [ mid-] J anuar y 2000"; a nd (3) the B oard, subsequent to being notified of that memora ndum by the RO, " re- mailed" a copy of its J une 1999 decision to the appe llant at his most current addr ess then of r ecor d. Dec lara tion (Dec l.) at 2. On J anuar

y 8, 2001, the Court or dere d the Secre tary to f ile a preliminary

rec ord evide ncing when the mailing defec t with respec t to the J une 1999 B oard de cision, conce ded in his November 2000 response , was c ured or a stateme nt that he had no further information t o prese nt on the issue. The Court notes that, in that orde r, the a ppell an t wa s gi v en t ime to respond, if he so chose, to the Se c re tary ' s r e sp on se . On J anuar y 31 , 2 00 1, the Se c re tary

re sp on de d to the Cou

rt or de r. I n h is response , the Secr eta ry

argues that, althoug h there was a defe ct in mailing notice of the June 29, 1999, BV A dec ision because the B VA used a n incorre ct apa

rtment number fo r t h e m ai l ing, that mailing de fec t was cur ed whe n the appe llant actually rec eived a

copy of the June 1999 Boa

rd3

decision. Secr etar

y ' s Response (S ec. Re sp.) at 1-2. The Secre tary asser ts that the appellant re ceive d

a c op y of the June 19 99 B VA de c isi on in No ve mbe r 199 9 whe n he re c e ive d a re qu e ste d c op y

of his complete claims file, which would have contained the J une 1999 B oard de cision. Sec. Resp. at 2. I n the alternative, the Secre tary asser ts tha t the appellant, by

his own contention, as re ported to the Boa rd by the AL , rec eived a

copy of the J une 1999 Boa

rd decision in January

2000. Sec. Resp. at 3. Th e Se c re tary

ha s a pp e nd e d to his re sp on se a pr e lim ina

ry re c or d (P rel im

. R. ) that

he a sse rt s supports hi s p o s i tion, including a c opy of a me morandum fr om the AL to the RO. I n that

memor an dum, the AL

i nf or ms t he R O tha t " [ the a pp el l an t ] c on t en ds tha t he d i d NOT r ec ei

ve the BV A d ecisio n u nti l m i d- Ja nuary 2000 [bec ause ] i t

was f i rs t sen t t o an [ i ncor rec t

apar t m ent

nu m b er ] an d th en re -rou ted to [h is cu rr en t ad d re ss]." Pr elim . R. a t 1 8 (em ph as is in o rig ina l). The Court notes that the appe llant did not respond to the Secre tary ' s response.

II. AN AL YSI S The ultimate burde n of establishing j urisdiction rests with the appe llant. See M cNutt v. G. M. A. C. , 2 98 U. S. 1 78 , 1 89 (1 93 6) ; Bethea v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 252, 255 (1992). Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), in order for a claimant to obt ain re view of a BV A dec ision by

this Court, t hat d ec i s i o n m ust be final and the person a dverse ly aff ecte d by that decision must file a timely NOA with the Court. Se e Ba ile yv . W est , 160 F.3d 1360, 1363 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) (en ba nc). To ha

ve bee n timely filed under

38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) a

nd Rule 4 of this Court's Rules of Prac tice and Proc edure , an NOAg ener ally must have been rec eived by the Court (or, in ce rtain circ umstances, be deeme d

so rec e iv e d ) w it

h in 1 2 0 d a y s a f

te r n o ti c e o f th e u n d e r ly

in g f in a l B V A d e c is io n w a s ma iled. See Cin tro n v . W

est , 13 Vet.App. 251, 254 ( 1999). But see Ir win v . D e pa rtm e nt of Vet era ns Af

fai rs , 498 U.S. 89, 96 (1990) ( under c erta in circumstanc es equitable tolling of judicial-a ppeal pe riod may be a pp ro pr ia te ); Bailey , 1 6 0 F. 3 d at 1 3 6 5 (C o u rt h el d

t h at eq u i t ab l e t o l l i n g co u l d ap p l y wh en VA 's

c on du c t mi sle d c la ima

nt i nto " a llo wi ng the fi lin g de a dli ne to p a ss" ); Evans v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 396, 399 (1999). I n o rd e r t o fu lf

ill its re sp on sib ili tie s un de r 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 4( a ) t o p ro vid e a n a pp e lla nt w ith notice of a

BV A dec ision, the Bo ar d m u s t "pr omptly mail a copy

of its written dec ision to t he [appellant] . . . at the last known addre ss of the [appellant] . . . ." 38 U.S.C. § 7104(e). T his Cou rt4

has hel d t hat

there i s a " ' pres um pt i on of regul ari t y ' " that appl i es t o the m ai l i ng of

Board dec i si ons pu rs u an t to 3 8 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 4 (e) th at "'th e S ec re tary an d th e B VA pr o pe rly d isch ar g ed th eir

o fficia l d u ties b y m ailing a co py o f a B VA d ec isio n to th e claim an t an d [to] th e c la im a n t's

r ep r es en t ati ve, if any, on the d at e t he d ec i s i on i s i s s ue d, ' " an d t ha t tha t pr es umpt i on c an be

ov erco m e only by " 'cl ear evidenc e t o t h e contrary. '" D av is v

. Br own , 7 V et . App

. 298 , 300 ( 199 4) ( quot i ng Ashley v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 307, 308- 09 (1992) )

. W hen the pres um pt i on h as been rebut t ed, the m ai l i ng def

ect m ay be cured by

proof that the Board deci si on was act ual l yrec ei

ved by t he part yt o whom i t was sen t , and the 120- day peri od does not begi n t o run unt i l the dat e on

w h ich th at d ef

ec t is cu re d b y ac tu al r ec eip t. See As hley , 2 V et.A pp . at 3 1 1 ; see al so D av is , 7 V et.A pp . at 3 0 3 ; Flu ker

v . Br own , 5 V et.A pp . 2 9 6 , 2 9 8 (1 9 9 3 ). I n the instant case , the Secre t ary conc edes that the Board on t

he dat e of the deci si on mail ed

no tice o f its Ju ne 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , d ec isio n to th e a pp ella nt a t an inc o rr ec t ad d re ss. See D ecl

. at 2; Sec. R es p. a t 1 . T h e B o a r d 's u se o f a n in co rr ec t ad d re ss c o ns titu tes th e " cle ar ev id en ce " n ee d ed to

r eb ut the p r es umpt i on of

r eg ul ar i t ytha t the B oa r d p r op erly m ai l ed no t i c e o f i t s de c i s i on t o t

he ap pe llan t pu rs u an t to 3 8 U .S .C . § 7 1 0 4 (e). See Flu ker , 5 V et.A pp . at 2 9 8 ; P iano v . Br own , 5 V et. App. 25, 26- 27 (1993)

. Th e Secr et ary now bears the burden of showi ng t

hat this m ai l i ng def

ect

w as cu re d b y th e ap pe llan t's ac tu al re ce ipt o f a co py o f th e B o ar d 's Ju ne 2 9 , 1 9 9 9 , d ec isio n. See As hley , supra ; see al so D av is an d Flu ker , b o th supra . Th e S ecr et ary has provi ded, and t he appel l ant has not cont est ed, evi dence , i n the for m of a m emorandum fr om the A L t o an RO , ref l ect i ng t hat
the appel l ant

rec ei ved a c opyof t

he J une 1999 BVA deci si on i n m i d- Ja nuary 2000. Pre l i m . R. at 18. Th e C ourt thus conc l udes that the m ai l i ng defect was c ured bythe appel l ant ' s a ct ual rec ei pt of a copy of the June 199 9 Board deci si on in Jan uary 2000 and that the 120- dayj udi ci al
- appe al peri od began t o run at

that t i m e. Even as sumin g that the appe l l ant rec ei ved a copy

of t he Board de c i s i on as l at e a s J an ua r

y31, 200 0, hi s N O A, whi c h wo ul d ha ve be en due on or be f

or e May30, 2000, was not fi l ed wi thin the 120- dayj udi ci al
- appe al peri od. Give n these c oncl usi ons, the C ourt

n e e d n o t a d d r e s s the Se c r e t a r

y ' s a s s e r t i o n tha t the a p p e l l a n t r e c e iv e d a c o p yo f the J un e 19 99 BV

A deci si on i n N ovember 1999

. Becaus e the appel l ant ' s N O A w as not fi l ed wi thin the 120- day j udi c i al
- ap pe al pe r i od an d be c au s e t her e i s no thi ng i n t

hi s ap pe al t o s ug ge s t

tha t t ol l i ng of

the j udi ci al
- appe al peri od would be a pprop ri at e, the C ourt conc l udes t

hat the appel l ant

has not m et th e b u rd en o f d em o ns tra ting th at an N O A w as tim ely file d

. Se e Sa nto ro v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 516,5

521 (2000) ( Court held that nothing in appe al al l o we d fo r equitable tolli ng of 120-da y statutory judicial-appe al per iod be cause "in order for an appe llant to have bee n ' induced by VA conduc t', the

a pp e lla nt m us t ha ve re lie d to his or

he r d e tr ime nt o n s ome thi ng that VA did that br e a c he d a du ty to that particula

r VA c laimant or, per

haps, some ac tion VA had a duty not to do").

III . C ON CL USI ON On c on sid e ration o f t

he fo re g oin g , th e Se c re tary ' s mo tio n is g ra nte d a nd thi s a pp e a l is DI SMI SSED for lack of

jurisdiction.