R o d rig u ez v . W est , 1 8 9 F .3 d 1 3 5 2 (F e d . C ir. 1 9 9 9 ), r eh' g den i ed(e n b a n c ), cer t
. deni ed , 529 U

. S. 1004 1 (2 0 0 0 ). Jaquay v . Pr i nci pi , N o . 9 8 -7 0 5 1 , 2 0 0 2 W L 3 1 0 5 0 8 1 6 , at *8 (F e d . C ir. S e p t. 1 6 , 2 0 0 2 ). 2 

## UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O 

## . 99-1048 H OL L Y 

## P. ANDREWS 

## , A PP EL L ANT 

## , V 

## . ANTHONY 

## J. P RINCI PI 

## , S EC RE T A RY O F 

## V ET ER A N S 

## A FF A I RS 

## , A PPEL L EE 

## .

Be foreFARLEY, HOLDAWAY, and STEI NB ERG, J

ud ge s. O R D E R On Se pte mbe r 1 2, 20 02 , the C ou rt a ff ir me d th e Se pte mbe r 2 3, 19 98 , B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls de cision that denied an eff ective date earlier than June 14, 1991, for an awa rd o f s ervic e connec tion for a psychiatric disability

. Andrews v. Principi , __ Vet.App. __, No. 99-1048 (Sept. 12, 2002). On Oc tober 2, 2002, the appellant, through counsel, filed a motion for rec onsideration. Upon c on sid e ratio n o f t

hefo re g oin g , th e pa

rt ie s' ple a din g s, and

there c ord o n a

pp e a l, i t is ORDERED that the motion for re consideration is denied. DA TE D: Oc tob e r 3 1, 20 02 PER CU RIAM

. ST E I N B E RG , Judge , d issenting: I voted to reque st a responsefrom the Sec reta ry to the appellant' s motion for rec onsideration. SeeU. S. V ET 

## . A PP 

## . R. 35(g ). At the time that the Court issued its merits opini on in this case , I felt bound by the languag e of theU.S. Court of Appea ls for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) in Rodriguez (al bei t no t an o pin ion that ans we re d a ll 1 

## questions). Howe ver, theFe dera l Circuit's subseque nt statement in Jaquay , to which the appellant 2 

## calls the Court' s attention – "[i] n the context of the non-adve rsarial, p ater nalistic, uniquely

proclaimant vete rans' compensation sy ste m , an dconsistent with our dec ision in Bailey [ v . W est , 160 F.3d 1360 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (en ba nc)], the ava ilability

of equitable tolling pursuant to Ir win [ v . D e pa rtm e nt o

f V e te ra ns Af fai rs , 4 98 U. S. 89 , 95 -9 6 (1 99 0) ,] sh ou ld b e int e rp re te d libe ra lly wi th respe ct to filings during thenon-adve rsarial stag e of the ve tera ns' benef its process" – and the f

act that3 8 C

. F.R

. § 2 0

. 1 0 0 1 (b) (20 0 1 ) (pro vi d i ng t hat m o t i o ns f o r B V A reconsi d erat i o n " m u st be f i l ed " at t he B o ard 3 o f V et erans' A p p eal s) (emp hasi s ad d ed ).

3 8 U

. S

. C

. § 7 7 2 2 ( b ) ( p r o v i d i n g t h a t " S e c r e t a r y s h a l l b y l e t t e r a d v i s e e a c h v e t e r a n a t t h e t i m e o f t h e v e t e r a n 's 4 di s ch ar g e or r el ea s e f

r om a ct i v e mi l i t ar y , n av al , or a i r s er v i ce (or as s oon a s pos s i bl e af t er s u ch di s ch ar g e or r el ea s e) of al l be n ef i t s a n d s er v i ce s u n der l aw s a dmi n i s t er ed by t h e D epa r t men t [of V et er an s A f

f ai r s ] f or wh i ch t h e v et er an ma y be e ligib le " ), (c )( 1 ) (p ro v id ing tha t " S e c re ta ry sh a ll d istrib u te fu ll info rm a tio n to e ligib le v e te ra n s a n d e ligib le d e p e n d e n ts regardi ng al l be nef

i t s and s ervi ces t o whi ch t hey m ay b e ent i t l ed unde r l aws adm i ni st ered by t he D ep art m ent " ). 

## 2 the Secr etar

y can be require d (1) to ignore his own perf ectly clea r regulation as to where a motion

3 

## for B oard of

Veter ans' Appea ls ( BVA) rec onsideration is to be filed and ( 2) to establish a proc edure fo r e ns uringtha

t mi sa dd re sse d r e c on sid e ra

tio n mot ion s are fo rw ard e d to theB VAdo su g g e st t o me that wher e the Sec reta

ry has been direc ted by Congr ess t o provide certain assistance to veterans , a 4 

## failureto d o s o co uld we ll fa ll within the br oa d eq uit a ble -t oll ing pr e sc ripti on

of theF e de ra l Circ uit in Jaquay . Acc ording ly , Iwould pref er to have had thebenefit of the Secr etar y' s point of view befor e ca sting my

vote in this inst ance , and thus voted for a Rule 35(g ) orde r.