UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS 

No. 15-3669 

PAULINE GARCIA, APPELLANT, 

V. 

DAVID J. SHULKIN, M.D., 

SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, APPELLEE. 

On Appeal from the Board of Veterans' Appeals 

(Argued June 26, 2017 Decided August 9, 2017) 

William A. L'Esperance, of Albuquerque, New Mexico, for the appellant. 

Omar Yousaf, with whom Leigh A. Bradley, General Counsel; Mary Ann Flynn, Chief 

Counsel; and Kenneth A. Walsh, Deputy Chief Counsel, all of Washington, D.C., were on the brief 

for the appellee. 

Before DAVIS, Chief Judge, and PIETSCH and GREENBERG, Judges. 

DAVIS, Chief Judge: The appellant, Pauline Garcia, appeals through counsel a May 19, 

2015, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that found no clear and unmistakable error 

(CUE) in an October 2006 Board decision that denied her late husband's claim for benefits for a 

mental disorder characterized by paranoia. Record (R.) at 2-23. This appeal is timely, and the 

Court has jurisdiction to review the Board's decision pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a). The matter 

was referred to a panel of the Court on May 11, 2017, to resolve a constitutional question. For the 

reasons that follow, the Court will dismiss this appeal with prejudice. 

I. BACKGROUND 

Mrs. Garcia's husband, Teofilo O. Garcia, served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 

August 1952 to August 1954. His August 1954 separation examination revealed that his 

psychiatric state was normal. 

The record contains a November 1981 summary of Mr. Garcia's medical history from his 

private physician, John Smoker, M.D. Dr. Smoker's summary reveals that he first treated Mr. 

Garcia in November 1965 for a burn to the eyes from a welding mishap. The summary states that 
2 

Dr. Smoker first treated Mr. Garcia for paranoia in August 1969, at which time he prescribed 

medication. 

In July 2002, Mr. Garcia filed a claim for benefits for a "history of paranoia." R. at 909. 

In July 2003, a VA regional office (RO) denied the claim. Mr. Garcia filed a Notice of 

Disagreement (NOD) with that decision and ultimately appealed to the Board. 

In July 2003, VA received a letter from Dr. Smoker stating that he had treated Mr. Garcia 

from 1965 to 1998, and that his treatment included medication for paranoid schizophrenia. Also 

in July 2003, VA received a copy of a letter from private physician Byrch Williams, M.D., to Mr. 

Garcia, indicating that he had been treating Mr. Garcia "almost exclusively" since 1998. R. at 962. 

Dr. Williams stated: 

Dr. Smoker first mentions your paranoia on 8/5/1969 and rapidly increased a dose 

of Mellaril to 100 milligrams 4 times a day. Paranoia that requires this much 

medicine often begins in teenage years and rarely when someone is in their late 

30's[,] as you were in 1969. I think this is consistent with your history of developing 

paranoia while you were in the service. 

Id. 

In September 2004, Mr. and Mrs. Garcia testified at a Board hearing. Mrs. Garcia stated 

that she had known Mr. Garcia since she was 14 years old and began dating him shortly after he 

left service. R. at 500. She reported that Mr. Garcia would tell her that people were following 

him, even when there was no one around, and that he would accuse her of things that he believed 

were true but were not. Id. She stated that she spoke to her own doctor who then asked to see Mr. 

Garcia, and "that's when I learned about paranoia." Id. 

In December 2004, the Board remanded Mr. Garcia's claim for further development, 

including a VA psychiatric examination. 

In February 2005, Mr. Garcia underwent the requested examination, conducted by Cheryl 

Greene, who is identified as the "examining physician." R. at 470. Dr. Greene stated that Mr. 

Garcia's claims file and medical records "were available to review prior to this examination," but 

did not state that she had, in fact, reviewed them. Id. She opined that Mr. Garcia met the diagnostic 

criteria for paranoid schizophrenia, "for which he has been treated for many years and claims he 

was first seen for paranoia in the service and that as likely as not this disorder started in service 

per the history given." R. at 471. 
3 

In October 2005, the Appeals Management Center (AMC) found Dr. Greene's report 

inadequate and issued the following examination inquiry: 

Return this case to Dr. Green[e] . . . for the reasons indicated below. Ensure that 

the case folder is provided and reviewed with a comment to the same included in 

the opinion report. 

Opinion Request 

The February 3, 2005[,] mental examination of this veteran found that it is as likely 

as not that his schizophrenia, paranoid[,] started in service per the history given. 

Please provide a rationale for this finding. The veteran's service history is limited 

due to the los[s] of records in the 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records 

Center, but available documentation does not manifest the type of service record 

common to personnel with his condition. 

He successfully completed two years of service, the full term of service for a 

draftee. His DD Form 214 (Separation Form) shows: he was promoted; he had no 

lost time for being absen[t] without leave (AWOL) or confinement; and he was 

awarded the Good Conduct Medal. Collectively[,] those facts indicate good 

discipline in service. Also, no bar to further service or reenlistment is annotated on 

the DD 214. 

Personnel with his condition[] in service[] are often identified, wrongly, as 

discipline problems until a mental condition is di[a]gnosed. This fact is usually 

manifest by having frequent discipline problems resulting in grade or rank 

reductions; frequent AWOL; confinement; early administrative[] discharged; and 

bars to reentry into the military annotated on the DD Form 214. His records reflect 

none of those things. 

The supporting rationale for concluding schizophrenia, paranoid[,] pre-existed 

and/or manifested in service must include studies, facts, treatment[,] and other 

evidence or information that shows the progression of this disability over time. 

R. at 451. 

Later that month, Dr. Greene provided an addendum in which she wrote only: "After 

review of [claims] file, [I] now feel it is impossible to say, without resorting to mere speculation, 

as to whether this veteran's schizophrenia, paranoid type[,] actually started in [s]ervice, without 

more documentation and records." R. at 449. 

In September 2006, Mr. Garcia filed, through a veterans service organization, a brief 

outlining his arguments to the Board. Of note, Mr. Garcia's nonattorney representative wrote: 

From the record, we note the processing of the remand by the [AMC], Washington, 

D.C.[,] and the AMC Resource Center (RC), Cleveland, Ohio. 
4 

. . . 

The February 2005 VA examiner professed an opinion of service relationship of 

the diagnosed paranoid schizophrenia, "per the history given." The VAE report 

was returned to obtain "a rationale for this finding[]" and to obtain a specific 

declaration of claims file review. 

R. at 426, 427. 

In October 2006, the Board denied Mr. Garcia's claim for benefits. Mr. Garcia, through 

his current counsel, appealed to the Court, but subsequently moved to dismiss his appeal. The 

Court granted that motion in May 2007. 

In July 2008, Mr. Garcia, through current counsel, filed a motion for revision of the October 

2006 Board decision on the basis of CUE. Specifically, he argued that revision of the decision 

was required because (1) the Board had not afforded sufficient probative weight to several 

favorable independent medical conclusions; (2) he was entitled to "a greater duty to assist" because 

his records were destroyed in the 1973 National Personnel Records Center fire; and (3) given the 

evidence available at the time of the October 2006 Board decision, the Board should have given 

him the benefit of the doubt. R. at 371-73. 

In April 2010, the Board specifically addressed these three allegations and denied Mr. 

Garcia's motion for revision of the October 2006 Board decision. In July 2010, Mr. Garcia filed a 

motion for reconsideration of the April 2010 Board decision, arguing that the Board's failure in 

October 2006 to consider Mrs. Garcia's September 2004 testimony was also CUE. The Board 

denied that motion in August 2010, finding that the Board in October 2006 specifically considered 

Mrs. Garcia's testimony. Mr. Garcia appealed to the Court. 

In December 2011, the Court issued a memorandum decision affirming the Board's finding 

of no CUE in the October 2006 Board decision based on Mr. Garcia's three initial allegations of 

CUE, but found that Mr. Garcia's fourth allegation—that the Board in October 2006 failed to 

consider his wife's September 2004 Board hearing testimony—was a distinct allegation of CUE 

that the Board was required to address. More specifically, the Court stated that "[t]his is a rare 

instance where an appellant may demonstrate that the correct facts were not before the Board based 

on the evidence of record." R. at 214 (citing Caffrey v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 377, 384 (1994) 

(Kramer, J., concurring)). The Court continued: "Because the 2006 [Board member] misstated the 

obvious content of the record, the facts known at the time were not really before him." R. at 215. 
5 

The Court concluded that the Board's conclusion in April 2010 that the Board in October 2006 

plainly considered and rejected Mrs. Garcia's testimony lacked adequate reasons or bases. 

Accordingly, that matter alone was remanded. 

The Court in December 2011 also acknowledged that Mr. Garcia "devote[d] considerable 

briefing effort decrying what he consider[ed] inappropriate influence exerted on [Dr. Greene] by 

the rating specialist and the [AMC]." R. at 212. The Court further stated: "The appellant 

discovered the involvement of the rating specialist and [AMC] only when reviewing the record on 

appeal." R. at 213. The Court found, however, that Mr. Garcia had "not argue[d] that this sequence 

of events constituted a violation of constitutional due process," but a failure of VA's enhanced duty 

to assist in cases where a claimant's service records were destroyed in the National Personnel 

Records Center fire. Id. The Court determined that, as an allegation of CUE, the constitutional 

theory could not succeed because it had not presented to the Board. The Court therefore dismissed 

Mr. Garcia's appeal "insofar as it advance[d] a theory of CUE based on the behavior of the rating 

specialist and [AMC] with regard to the VA examination report of February 2005." Id.

In January 2012, Mr. Garcia died. Later that year, Mrs. Garcia was substituted for her 

husband in this matter. 

In October 2012, the Board explained that, in light of the Court's December 2011 

determination that the correct facts were not before the Board in October 2006, the only remaining 

question regarding the fourth allegation of CUE1

 was whether the Board's consideration of Mrs. 

Garcia's September 2004 testimony in October 2006 would have changed the outcome of the 

decision. The Board found that there was both positive and negative evidence of continuity of 

symptoms since service, and, therefore, the matter was one related to the weight of the evidence. 

The Board correctly noted that an error in the weight afforded the evidence by the Board does not 

rise to the level of CUE. R. at 158; see Russell v. Principi, 3 Vet.App. 310, 313-14 (1992) (en 

banc) (stating that the alleged error must be "undebatable," not merely "a disagreement as to how 

the facts were weighed or evaluated"). The Board also considered Mrs. Garcia's testimony along 

with the other evidence of record and concluded that it was not "absolutely clear" that, but for the 

 1

 The Board readjudicated the three original allegations of CUE, despite the fact that the Court in December 

2011 affirmed the April 2010 Board decision as to those matters. R. at 156-57. The Court's December 2011 

memorandum decision is the law of the case on those matters, and the Court need not revisit them here. 
6 

Board's failure to consider the testimony, the outcome of the October 2006 Board decision would 

have been favorable to Mr. Garcia. R. at 158-59. 

In January 2013, Mrs. Garcia filed a motion to vacate and reconsider the October 2012 

Board decision. Her motion included, for the first time, an allegation that the October 2005 AMC 

examination inquiry constituted a violation of due process. R. at 36-38. In July 2013, the Board 

denied Mrs. Garcia's motion. Mrs. Garcia appealed to the Court, arguing that the Board erred in 

finding no CUE in the October 2006 decision because the Board did not address her argument 

regarding due process and failed to readjudicate the matter of her September 2004 testimony in 

accordance with the Court's December 2011 remand. 

In October 2014, the Court issued a memorandum decision again remanding the matter of 

CUE based on the Board's consideration of Mrs. Garcia's September 2004 testimony, finding that 

the Board considered only whether the testimony established that Mr. Garcia's paranoia began in

service, while the testimony, in fact, related to whether his paranoia began within one year of 

discharge. R. at 1119 (citing 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.307, 3.309 (2014)). The Court again dismissed the 

allegation of CUE based on a due process violation, concluding that, because the allegation was 

never presented to the Board, the Court lacked jurisdiction to consider it. The Court reiterated that 

"Mr. Garcia has not raised any theories of CUE based on constitutional error," and that, to the 

extent that Mrs. Garcia relied an August 2012 letter to the Board, "th[at] letter d[id] not refer to or 

raise a valid theory of CUE as it contain[ed] only the single, incorrect statement that the Court's 

2011 decision noted a constitutional defect in the Board's 2006 decision." R. at 1120; see R. at 

194. 

In May 2015, the Board issued the decision on appeal, finding that the Board's failure in 

October 2006 to consider Mrs. Garcia's September 2004 Board hearing testimony did not 

constitute CUE because the error did not manifestly change the outcome of the decision. This 

appeal followed. 

II. ANALYSIS 

To begin, the Court must satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction over the constitutional matter, 

which arrived at the Court by way of the Board's adverse decision on the fourth allegation of CUE. 

See Barnett v. Brown, 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ("[A] statutory tribunal must ensure 

that it has jurisdiction over each case before adjudicating the merits . . . . [A] potential jurisdictional 
7 

defect may be raised by the court or tribunal, sua sponte . . . and, once apparent, must be 

adjudicated."); Marsh v. West, 11 Vet.App. 468, 469 (1998) ("[T]he Court has jurisdiction to assess 

its own jurisdiction."). If the Board lacked jurisdiction to entertain that allegation, the Court 

likewise lacks jurisdiction to review it, and this appeal must be dismissed. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); 

Ledford v. West, 136 F.3d 776, 779 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (stating that his Court's jurisdiction is 

"premised on and defined by the Board's decision concerning the matter being appealed"). 

A. Timeliness of the Fourth CUE Allegation 

A prior final Board decision must be reversed or revised where evidence establishes clear 

and unmistakable error. See 38 U.S.C. § 7111(a). CUE is established when the following 

conditions are met: First, either (1) the correct facts in the record were not before the adjudicator 

or (2) the statutory or regulatory provisions in existence at the time were incorrectly applied. See 

Damrel v. Brown, 6 Vet.App. 242, 245 (1994). Secondly, the alleged error must be "undebatable," 

not merely "a disagreement as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated." Russell, 3 Vet.App. 

at 313-14. Finally, the commission of the alleged CUE must have "manifestly changed the 

outcome" of the decision being attacked at the time that decision was rendered. Id.; see Bustos v. 

West, 179 F.3d 1378, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (expressly adopting the "manifestly changed the 

outcome" language in Russell). 

In March 2011, approximately eight months before the Court issued its first memorandum 

decision in this matter, the Court issued a decision in Hillyard v. Shinseki, 24 Vet.App. 343 (2011). 

In that case, the Court held that an appellant has only one opportunity to raise allegations of CUE 

for each claim decided in a Board decision, and any subsequent attempt to raise a CUE challenge 

to the same claim contained in a Board decision must be dismissed with prejudice. 24 Vet.App. 

at 352-53. Although the facts of that case were much simpler—Mr. Hillyard attempted to raise a 

new CUE challenge several years after his earlier CUE challenge was denied and had become 

final—we find that case unequivocal and controlling under the circumstances presented here. 

Here, although the Court in December 2011 remanded Mr. Garcia's CUE motion, raising 

the question of whether a new CUE challenge may be raised where the Court remands the initial 

CUE challenge, it is only in hindsight that this issue arises. It would be illogical to hold that new 

allegations of CUE in a Board decision may be raised on remand because, at the time the initial 

CUE motion is filed, it is impossible to know whether, at some point in the future, the Court will 

remand the initial CUE challenge. The rule established in Hillyard rightly requires that all possible 
8 

errors in a final Board decision be raised at the time a motion for revision of that Board decision 

based on CUE is filed. No later CUE challenges to a Board decision may be entertained. 

In light of the rule in Hillyard, the Court concludes that, in both December 2011 and 

October 2014, it improperly entertained the fourth allegation of CUE regarding Mrs. Garcia's 

hearing testimony. There is no dispute that Mr. Garcia's initial motion for revision of the October 

2006 Board decision based on CUE was filed in July 2008 and raised only three arguments. R. at 

371-73. He did not raise the fourth allegation regarding his wife's testimony until his July 2010 

motion for reconsideration of the April 2010 Board decision that adjudicated his three initial CUE 

allegations. R. at 276-85. There is also no dispute that Hillyard was controlling law at the time 

of the December 2011 memorandum decision. Accordingly, in December 2011, the proper course 

of action was for the Court to dismiss Mr. Garcia's appeal of the Board's decision on the fourth 

allegation of CUE. See Hillyard, 24 Vet.App. at 354. That remains the proper course of action, 

and the Court will therefore dismiss Mrs. Garcia's appeal of the May 2015 Board decision to the 

extent that it pertains to the Board's denial of CUE in the October 2006 Board decision based on 

her September 2004 hearing testimony. The Court regrets its error and the subsequent effort and 

expense its error imposed on the parties. Nevertheless, the Court may not create jurisdiction where 

none exists. 

B. Due Process Allegation 

Having found that the Court lacked, and lacks, jurisdiction to entertain Mrs. Garcia's fourth 

CUE allegation, we must next consider whether we have jurisdiction to entertain her constitutional 

due process argument. It is well settled that entitlement to VA benefits is a property interest 

protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Cushman 

v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290, 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Accordingly, claimants are entitled to a 

"fundamentally fair adjudication of [their] claim[s]." Id. at 1296. Mrs. Garcia contends that the 

AMC's October 2005 examination inquiry so plainly sought a negative nexus opinion that it 

violated her husband's right to the impartial development of evidence. See Austin v. Brown, 

6 Vet.App. 547, 552 (1994) ("[B]asic fair play requires that evidence be procured by the agency 

in an impartial, unbiased, and neutral manner."). The Court holds that it need not determine 

whether a constitutional violation occurred because this matter is not properly before us. 

To begin, there is no dispute that this matter was, when viewed in the light most favorable 

to Mrs. Garcia, first raised to the Court in 2011 in Mr. Garcia's briefs, and to the Board in the 
9 

January 2013 motion for revision of the October 2012 Board decision. Therefore, to the extent 

that Mrs. Garcia intended to allege a due process violation as an allegation of CUE in the October 

2006 Board decision, that argument must fail in light of Hillyard, as discussed above. Further, to 

the extent that the due process argument is before the Court only as a result of the improper 

December 2011 and October 2014 remands by the Court, the Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain 

it. See 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a); Ledford, 136 F.3d at 779. 

At oral argument, counsel for Mrs. Garcia argued that due process violations are special 

and may be raised at any time, regardless of the finality of the underlying decision. The U.S. Court 

of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Federal Circuit), however, appears to disagree. In Cook v. 

Principi, the Federal Circuit made clear that there are only two exceptions to finality in the veterans 

benefits system: The submission of new and material evidence in a previously and finally decided 

claim and CUE in a final RO or Board decision. 318 F.3d 1334, 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2002) (en banc) 

("The statutory scheme provides only two exceptions to the rule of finality."); see 38 U.S.C. 

§ 5109A(a) ("A decision by the Secretary . . . is subject to revision on the grounds of clear and 

unmistakable error. If evidence establishes the error, the prior decision shall be reversed or 

revised."); 38 U.S.C. § 5108 ("If new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect 

to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former 

disposition of that claim."). 

In dissent, one judge of the Federal Circuit asserted that a due process violation could 

vitiate the finality of a decision. Cook, 318 F.3d at 1350-58 (Gajarsa, J., dissenting). In a footnote, 

the majority addressed this contention: 

The Due Process Clause question was not briefed by the parties or argued to us. 

Nevertheless, assuming arguendo that a breach of the duty to assist may implicate 

the Due Process Clause, we note that the claim adjudication process before the RO 

and the Board has long provided a structure that affords a veteran a hearing. See

38 C.F.R. §§ 3.3-3.14; 19.0-19.7 (1949). During the adjudication of his claim, a 

veteran may always assert that there has been a breach of the duty to assist. 

Moreover, as noted, under the regime that has existed since 1988, if the Veterans 

Court determines that the VA failed to comply with the duty to assist, the court may 

vacate the decision being appealed and remand the case for further consideration in 

compliance with the duty to assist. Pond [v. West], 12 Vet.App. [341,] 346 

[(1999)]. 

If, however, a breach of the duty to assist is not known to the veteran during the 

adjudication of his claim, and becomes known to the veteran only after the decision 

to deny his claim for benefits has become final, the veteran may only apply to have 
10 

the final judgment reopened through the two avenues provided by Congress, CUE 

and new and material evidence. These two avenues constitute significant 

departures from the normal rule that final judgments cannot be reopened. For the 

reasons stated infra in this opinion, a breach of the duty to assist may not form the 

predicate for a CUE claim. Whether it is possible for a veteran to ameliorate the 

potential harm of a breach of the duty to assist with a claim of new and material 

evidence is not a matter before us. In any event, the possibility that an error may 

occur during the claim adjudication process is not a reason to hold the process in 

violation of the Due Process Clause and therefore vitiate the rule of finality. 

Id. at 1341 n.9. Although this language is plainly dicta, as this issue was not briefed or argued to 

the Federal Circuit in that case, it is nevertheless instructive, and we adopt this reasoning in holding 

that even an allegation of a due process violation may not vitiate the finality of a decision. 

The Court notes that, in his briefs in 2011 and again at oral argument before the Court in 

this case, counsel for Mrs. Garcia represented that he was not aware of the October 2005 AMC 

inquiry when he filed the July 2008 motion for revision of the October 2006 Board decision based 

on CUE. Although the Court has no reason to doubt counsel's representation, it nevertheless 

appears that the October 2005 AMC inquiry was in Mr. Garcia's claims file at least as early as 

September 2006. As noted in Part I above, Mr. Garcia's nonattorney representative plainly quoted 

that inquiry in his September 2006 brief to the Board. Compare R. at 427 (September 2006 brief), 

with R. at 451 (October 2005 AMC inquiry). Because the potential duty to assist violation was 

known before the October 2006 Board decision, it should have been raised at that time, on direct 

appeal, as the Federal Circuit stated in Cook. 

Finally, in her briefs, Mrs. Garcia cites 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a) for the proposition that "[a]n 

appellate decision may be vacated at any time on the Board's (or Court's) own motion when there 

has been a denial of due process." Appellant's Br. at 11. To the extent that Mrs. Garcia challenges 

the Board's July 2013 denial of her January 2013 motion to vacate and reconsider, which first 

raised the constitutional issue, the Court lacks jurisdiction over that matter. The Court "[has] no 

jurisdiction to consider the Chairman's denial of [a motion for] reconsideration," Mayer v. Brown, 

37 F.3d 618, 619 (Fed. Cir. 1994), and the Court's caselaw requires it to consider a motion to 

vacate no differently than a motion for reconsideration with respect to appealability. See Harms 

v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 238, 243 (2006) (en banc). Moreover, as Mrs. Garcia acknowledged at 

oral argument, § 20.904(a) empowers the Board to vacate its own decision on the basis of a due 

process violation, not the Court. 38 C.F.R. § 20.904 (2017) ("An appellate decision may be 
11 

vacated by the [Board] at any time upon request of the appellant or his or her representative, or on 

the Board's own motion" where the Board determines there has been a violation of due process). 

In light of this discussion, the Court concludes that we must dismiss Mrs. Garcia's 

allegation of a due process violation in the development of her husband's claim. 

III. CONCLUSION 

After consideration of the appellant's and the Secretary's briefs, the matters raised at oral 

argument, and a review of the record on appeal, this appeal is DISMISSED with prejudice.