UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 04-1442
P I LAR F. S U A V I SO , 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 Ma

rch 10, 2006 )

Pi lar F. Su av iso , pro se. Tim S. Mc Cla in , Ge ne ral Co un se l; R

. R a n d a l l C a m pb e ll , A ssi sta

nt G e ne ra l Co un se l; Carolyn F. W ashington , Deputy Assistant Gene ral Counsel; and Miche le R. Katina , all of Washington, D.C., wer e on the plea dings f

or the a ppellee.
Be fore KASOL D, MOORMAN, a nd SCHOEL EN, Judges

. K A SO L D , Ju dge : Mrs. Pil ar F . Suaviso, the surviving spouse of World War I Iveter an Vi c tor iano S. Su avis o, a

pp e a ls p ro se a July

16 , 2 00 4, de c isi on

of the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls (B oa rd ) t hat de te rm ine d th at sh e ha d f a ile d to pr e se nt n e w a

nd materi al e vid e nc e su ff

ic ie nt t o
war rant re openinga pre viously disallowed and f inal claim for non- service -conne cted de ath pension benef its. For the r easons se t forth below, the de cision of the B oard w ill be affir med.

I. BACKG ROUND Mr. Suaviso serve d with the New Philippine Scouts from August 1946 to May 1949. Record (R.) at 13, 39-40. H e died in Jul y 1988. R. at 44. In May

1994, Mrs. Suaviso filed a c laim for nonservice -conne cted d isability pension bene fits. SeeR. at 38 , 4 8, 54 . Sh e su bmi tte d d oc ume nts , including ( 1) a le tter date d May 1949 from the He adquar

ters Philippines Com mand to Mr. Suaviso, that noted Mr. Suav iso "ser ved we ll and faithfully

as a Philippine Scout" (R. a t 39), and (2) an2

"Army of the United States Sepa ration Qua lification Recor d" c ontaining ide n t ifying inf ormation such as Mr. Suaviso' s name a nd ad dress, Ar

my serial number , g rade , and plac e of se paration (Philippi nes) ( R. at 40). In J anuar y 1999, althoug h Mr. Suaviso was ce rtified as ha ving " active service " w ith the U. S

. Army by the National Per sonnel Recor ds Center (N PRC ), the B oard
no ne the le ss d e nie d M rs . Su avis o' s c la im f or no n- service -c onne c te d d e ath p e ns ion be ne fi ts a s a matter of law because the veter an did not meet the ba sic servic e elig ibilit y require ments. R. at 52-59. That dec ision was not appea led. Be tween Septe mber 1999 a nd May 2003, Mrs. Suaviso submit ted additional evidenc e that the VA r eg ional office (RO) c onstrued as a claim to reope n her pr eviously disallowed cla im for nonse rv ic e -con nec te d d e ath p e ns ion be ne fi ts. Mr s. Suavis o a rgue d th at sh e wa s e nti tle d to be ne fi ts beca use her husband wa s a vete ran, that her husband' s serv i ce in the N ew Philippine Scouts was
cer tified by the servic e depa

rtment as " active se rvice ," a nd that his "a cti v e ser

vice" in World W ar I Iwas with the U.S. Army . R. at 48, 133, 146. The RO denied her c laim, and she a ppeale d. R. at 154, 213. In the J uly

2004 decision on appea l, the Boa rd conc luded that the evide nce submitted by Mrs. Suaviso was not new a nd materia l and denied he r cla im to reopen. R. at 1-9.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Standard of

Review A pre viously

disallowed cla im may be reope ned upon the submission of new and mate rial evidenc e with respe ct to that claim. See 3 8 U. S

. C

. § 5 1 0 8 ; 3 8 C

. F. R

. § 3

. 1 5 6 (a ) ( 2 0 0 0 ). T h e B o ar d 's de te rm inatio n o f whe the r a c la ima nt ha s su bmi tte d n e w a

nd mate ri a l e vid e nc e to r e op e n a pr e vio us ly de nie d c la im g e ne ra ll y is revi ewe d und e r t he " c le arl y

e rr on e ou s" sta

nd ard se t f or th i n 3 8 U .S. C. § 7 2 61(a) (4). Se eEl

k ins v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 209, 216- 17 (1999) ( en banc ) (notingshift in the g e ne ra lly a pp lic a ble sta nd ard of re vie w of a ne w an d mat e ri a l det e rm inatio n b y the B oa rd to " c le arl y
err oneous" revie w from de novo re view, see , e.g. , J on es v . D e rwi ns k

i 1 Vet.App. 210, 213 ( 1991); Manio v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 1 40 , 1 45 (1 99 0) ); see also Prillaman v. Principi , 346 F.3d 1362, 1367 (F ed. Cir. 2003) (a ffirmingthis Cou rt ' s application of the " clea rly err oneous" standard of revie w to a new -and- materia l-evidenc e dete rmination by the B oard)

.I n Vor ace k v. Ni chol s on , t he U

. S. Co ur t of

Ap peal s f

or t he Federa l Ci r cui t ( Federa l Ci r cui t ) i nex pl i cabl y ci t ed 1 sol el y t o t hi s C o urt ' s o p i ni o n i n Jones , su p ra , f or t he propo s i t i on t hat wh ethe r e vi dence i s ne w an d m at er i al un der 3 8 C .F .R . § 3 .1 5 6 is a q u e stio n o f l a w . See 421 F. 3d 129 9, 130 3 (Fed. Ci r . 200 5). Part i cul ar l y i n l i gh t of t he f act t hat t he Fe d eral C i rcui t i n V oracek re v ie w e d this C o u rt' s inte rp re ta tio n o f § 3 .1 5 6 a s o p p o se d to th e w e igh ing o f f a c ts, s ee i d. at 1 3 0 3

- 0 4 , we do no t i nt erpret t he Fe d eral C i rcui t ' s sol e rel i ance o n Jones t o be a repudi at i on o f cas es hol di ng t hat a new- and

- m at eri al

- evi d ence d et erm i nat i o n general l y i s a f a c t deter m i nat i o n t o be revi ewed i n t hi s C o urt unde r t he

" c le a rly e rr o n e o u s" sta n d a rd o f re v ie w , s ee Pr i l l am an v
. Pr i nci pi , 3 4 6 F

. 3 d 1 3 6 2 , 1 3 6 7 (Fed

. C i r. 20 0 3 ); E l kin s v. W est , 12 V et

. A pp . 209 , 218 ( 19 99 ) (e n banc) , or cas es hol di ng t hat t he Federa l Ci r cui t l ack s j ur i s di ct i on t o re vi ew s uch d e te rm ina tio n s, s ee V

oracek , 421 F. 3d a t 1302 ( Fe der al Ci r cu i t "may n ot r ev i ew f i n di n g s of

f ac t or t h e appl i ca t i on of l aw t o t he f

act s, excep t to t he ext ent that an ap p eal present s a co nst i t ut i o nal i ss ue" (ci t i ng 38 U

. S.C

. § 7 2 9 2 (d)(2) and B u st o s v. W

est , 17 9 F.3d 13 7 8 , 13 8 0 (Fed

. C i r. 1 9 9 9 )) ). 3 The " clea rly err oneous" standard of

revie w g ener ally

is appropri ate because the new- andmateria l evidence deter

mination is often "f

act- intensive" and ofte n require s "the weighing of
con fl ict in g evid ence a ndtes ti mo ny ." Prillaman , 346 F.3d at 1367. Of course, in certain instance s the new- and-material-e vidence deter minat i o n wi l l be re viewed de novo. See Elkins , 12 Vet.App.
at 21 8 ( " the c ir c ums tanc e s o f a n in div idu a l c a se , c ou

ple d wi th the a c c umu latio n of [B oa rd ] a nd RO experience in a

pplying § 3.156(a)

. . . from time to tim e may call for the application of a de- novo . . .
s ta n d ar d o f r e v ie w " )

. F o r e xamp le , d e n o v o r e v ie w ma y b e a p p r o p r iate w h e n an a s s essment of whether corr oborative e vidence is "' neither cumulative nor redundant' " under § 3.156 is a matter of regulatory

interpre tation, id. , o r whe n the la c k o f m ate ri a lity of a do c ume nt c an b e de te rm ine d o n it s fac e, s ee Voracek

v. Nicholson , 421 F.3d 1299,1305 ( Fe d. Cir. 2005) (dec iding a s a matter of law that appellant' s statement fa iled to meet the definition of m ater iality under § 3.156(a) beca use that "sing le statement that his condition 'wor sened' does not, on its face , relate in any way to his condition duri ngthe pe nd e nc y

of his or ig ina l c la im o r t o a

ny oth e r une sta

bli sh e d fa c t nec e ssa

ry to s ub sta nti ate his origina l claim" ( emphasis adde d)). 1

B . " Ac tiv e Se rv ic e " in t

he Ne w Ph ili pp ine Sc outs Mrs. Suaviso argues that Mr. Suaviso had qua lifying se rvice beca use the NPRC certified her husband' s s er v i ce as "ac tive service ." A lthough Mrs. Suaviso is corr ect in her descr iption of the
cer tification, her a

rgument is unavailing . There is no dispute that Mr. Suaviso had " active se rvice " in the New Phili ppine Scouts. Howeve r, "a ctive service " in the New Phili ppine Scouts, a s the 1999 B oa rd c or re c tly state d, do e s n ot, a s a

matte r of law, pe rm it an awa rd of no n- se rv ic e -c onne c te d d e ath pension bene fits. See38 U.S.C. §§ 1 0 1, 107(b) ( except for c erta in life insuranc e contr acts a nd be ne f i t s un d e r c h a p t e r s 1 1 ( d i s a

b i l i ty c o mp e n s at i o n ) an d

1 3 ( d e p e n d e n c y

an d i n d e m nity4

compensation) of title 38, U.S. Code, service in the New Philippine Scouts is not active se rvice for purposes of VA bene fits); Ma nli nc on v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 239, 240 ( 1999) (wido w o f v et eran of New Philippine Scouts not entitl ed to non-ser vice- connec ted death p e n s io n b e c a u se vete ran' s service
no t c on sid e re d ac tiv e se rv ic e fo r VAbe ne fi ts) ; Laruan v. Principi , 4 Vet.App. 100, 100- 01 (1993) (" [e]ntit le me nt t o [c e rt a in VA] b e ne fi ts f or [fo rm e r] N e w Ph ili pp ine Sc outs i s li mit e d to tho se benef its specified in [38 U.S.C . § 107(b)]") ; 38 C.F.R. § 3.40(b) (2005) (bene fits available to Ne w Phi lip pin e Sc outs d oe s n ot i nc lud e pe ns ion be ne fi ts) ; se eals o 38 U.S.C. §§ 1521(j) (" [a] veter an meets the ser

vice r equire ments of this se ction if such vete ran se rved in the a ctive military , naval, or air ser vice [(for or

duringcer

tain specifie d periods)]") , 1541 (authorizing pa y ment of non-se rvice

connec ted death pension benef its to a surviving spouse of a " veter an " wh o m ee t s the servic e require ments presc ribed in 38 U.S.C. § 1521(j)). The 2004 B oar d found that the e vidence submitt ed by Mrs. Suaviso consisted of her own state me nts and c op ie s of the pr oc e dura l histo ry of he r ca se . The B oa rd fu rt he r d e te rm ine d th at Mr s. Suavis o " is n ot d isp uti ngthe fi nd ing s" tha t he r h us ba nd se rv ed in the N e w Ph ili pp ine Sc outs. Although Mr s. Suaviso argues that such se rvice constituted service in the U.S. Army , her a rgument does not make it so; nor does the N PRC ' s descr iption of Mr. Suaviso's ser vice in the Ne w Philippi nes Scouts as "a ctive ser

vice." Wit hout questioning the " active se rvice " of Mr. Suaviso in support of the United States, the fa c t re ma ins that the law d oe s n ot p e rm it a n a wa rd of VAno n- se rv ic e -c onne c te d p e ns ion be ne fi ts for se rvice in the New Philippines Scouts, be it active or othe rwise. See Manlincon and Laruan, bo th supra. Upon re view of the rec ord on appea l in its entirety , the 2004 B oard' s determination that the evidenc e submitted by Mrs. Suaviso w as not ne w and mate rial bec ause it did not demonstrate se rvice by her hu s b an d th at c o u ld qu a li f y f o r V A p e n s io n b e n e f

it s an d it s f

in d in g s o f f

a c t s u p p o rti n g that decision ar e plausible a

nd there fore are not clear ly err oneous. See Elkins , su pra ; Gilbert v. Derwinski , 1 Ve t.A

pp . 4 9, 52 (1 99 0) (B oa

rd ' s f ind ing s o f fact ar e re vie we d und e r t he " c le arl y
err oneous" standard of

revie w and may

not be reve rsed or revised unle ss the Boa rd' s findings a

re not pla us ibl e and , th e re fo re , a

re c le arl y e rr on e ou s) ; se eals o 38 U.S.C. § 5108; 38 C .F.R. § 3.156.

III . C ON CL USI ON5

Upon consider ation of the for eg oing, the decision of the B oard is af firmed. AFF I RMED.