UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

No. 97-1192
F RAN K L. T ET RO , III , A PP EL L ANT ,

V
. H ER SH EL W. G OBER , A C TI NG 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 Sep 6, 2000)

Ru th T e tro (n o n -a t t o rney

repr esentative), of Chinook, WA, was on the plea dings f or the a pp e lla nt. Leigh A. Bradley , G e 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; Michae l A. Le on ar d , Deputy Assistant Gene ral Couns el; and Adam K. Llewellyn , all of Washington, D.C., were on the pleading s for the a ppellee.
Be fore KRAMER, I VERS, and GREENE, J ud ge s. I VERS, Judge , filed the opinion of t he Court. KRAMER, Judge , filed an opinion conc urring in p art and dis se nti ngin p art

. I VERS, Judge : The appellant, Fr ank L

. Tetro, I I I , appea ls a Marc h 26, 1997, decision of the Boa rd of Ve teran s ' Ap peals (B VA or B oard) denying a n eff ective date ea

rlier than F ebrua

ry 23, 1989, for a

n awa rd of se rvice connec tion for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), g ranting specia l monthly pension based on the need f or reg ular aid and attendance , and g ranting an ef fec tive date of April 26, 1991, for non- service -conne cted total a nd perma nent disability pension. Record (R.) at 6- 13. The a ppellant has filed a br ief, the Sec reta ry has filed a

motion for summary

aff irmance in lieu of a br ie f, and the a

pp e lla nt h a s f ile d a mot ion in o pp os iti on

to t he Se c re tary ' s mo tio n a

nd a re qu e st for summary

judgme nt, which the Court treats as a re ply brief. This appea l is timely , and the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a) a nd 7266(a)

. On April 4, 2000, the Court issued an opinion in this case, Te tro v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 4042

(2000), that a ffirme d in pa rt, and vaca

ted in part the B oard' s Marc h 26, 1997 decision. The Sec reta ry fi l eda m o t i o nfo r r ec o n s i d er at i o nan d fo r f u l l C o u rt re v i ew , d at edAp ri l 2 5 , 2 0 0 0 , as t o t h e C o u rt 's holding r eg ardingthe application of Ha y re v . W est , 188 F.3d 1327 ( Fe d. Cir. 1999), t o the facts of this case. The Court w ill g rant the Sec reta ry ' s motion for rec onsideration, withdra w its April 4, 2000 opinion, and issue this opini on in its stead. The Court further notes, that, by

order dated Apr il 17, 1998, the Court advised the appellant that the re cord on a ppeal ( ROA) may

not include mater ials not rele vant to the issues on appe al. B y order dated J une 4, 1998, the C ourt advised the appellant that the Court is preclude d from conside ring on appea l any materia l that was not in the rec ord bef ore the Boa rd whe n it render ed its Marc h 26, 1997, decision, an d t h at documents that postdate the Boa rd decisi on cannot be included in the ROA. B y order dated July

7, 1998, the Court cautioned the appellant a g ainst attempt i n g t o supplement the ROA with documents not re levant to the issues of the e ff e c tiv e date of

his pe rm ane nt a

nd tot a l di sa bil ity fo r p e ns ion

purp os e s a

nd the e ff e c tiv e date of his g ra nt of se rv ic e c on ne c tio n f

or PTSD . T he a

pp e lla nt h a s su pp le me nte d b oth

his br ie f a

nd his reply brief w ith clippings, news articles, and other extraneous m ater ials. The Sec reta ry has moved to s tr ike the se do c ume nts . N on e of the e xtra ne ou s mate ri a l a tta c he d to the a pp e lla nt' s f ili ng s w ill be conside red. The a ppellant ar g ues as f

ollows: (1) that the F eder al Govern m ent fa iled to provide do c ume ntatio n o f h is e xpos ur e to A g e nt O ra ng e and bio log ic a l and

c he mic a l w arf

are a g e nts (Argument 1); (2) that VA fa iled to consider a s a PTSD stressor hi s s u rv i v al o f a shipboar d fire during service (Argument 2); (3) that a 1999 Boa rd dec ision awardinga 100% disability rating for

a ser vice- connec ted closed he ad inj ury assig ned an inc orre ct ef

fec tive date ( Argument 3); (4) that he is entitled to r etroa ctive pension benef its pursua nt to 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(b) (1999) (Argument 4); (5) that a 1990 Boa

rd decision denying entitlement to non-servic e-c onnecte d pension, a 1994 rating decision, and the 1997 Boa rd de ci s ion that is the subject of this appea l contained c lear and

un mis ta ka ble e rr or (C UE ) (A rgume nt 5) ; and (6 ) that the B oa rd in 199 0 fa ile d in

its du ty to a ssi st the appe llant by failing to obtain Social Security Administration (SS A) re cords pe rtaining to a 1989

awa rd of dis a bil ity (A rgume nt 6 ). I n r e sp on se , th e Se c re tary argue s me re ly that the re wa s a pla us ibl e basis in the rec ord for

the ef fec tive date f

or the a ppellant' s non-ser

vice- connec ted pension aw ard a s deter mined by the B oard. F or the followingrea sons, the Court rejec ts Arg uments 1 throug h 6.3 I. BACKG ROUND Only those fac ts in the recor d t h at ar e re l evant to thi s decision ar e set for th here . The

a pp e lla nt i nit ia lly

se rv e d o n a c tiv e du ty

in t he U. S. N a vy

fr om S e ptem ber 1964 thr ou g h A ug us t 19 68 . R. a t 19 . In N ov e mbe r 198 3, the a pp e lla nt fe ll fr om a

wa lkw ay in a wo rk -r e la te d a c c ide nt, landing on his head. R. at 26, 778-81. H e filed a cl aim for non- service -conne cted total and perma nent disability

pension bene fits on Dec ember 28, 1984. R. at 20- 21. That cla im was denied in an unappe aled r ating decision in Marc h 1985, on the basis that he wa s not preclu ded fr om substantially

g ainful employ

ment by rea son of total and per

manent disability

. R. 29. A re opened claim was de nied on the same basis in Aug ust 1987 (R. at 37), and, in a Mar ch 1988 dec ision, the Boa rd re manded the matter to a VAregiona l office (RO) in orde r to obtain additional medica l

e vid e nc e . R. a t 61 9, 66 8. I n Se pte mbe r 1 98 9, wh ile the a pp e lla nt' s c la im w a s o n B oa

rd re mand to the RO (R

. a t 45 , 4 27 ), the a pp e lla nt d e liv e re d to VAa

F e br ua ry 22 , 1 98 9, Soc ia l Se c ur ity Administration (SS A) de cision that (1) documented a J uly 1985 SSA decision gr anting him a closed period of total disability benef its from November 1, 1983, throug h May 17, 1985, and (2) deter

mined that he wa s totally

disabled and w as entitled to Social Security disability benef its, commencing May 17, 1985 (the e nd of the pre viously closed pe riod of disability). R. at 432-33. In a Mar ch 1990 de c isi on , the B oa

rd de nie d th e a

pp e lla nt' s p e ns ion

c la im o n th e ba sis that hi s d isa bil iti e s, wh ile limit ing his a

bility to eng ag e in some forms of employ ment, did not pr eclude substantially g ainful employ ment. R. at 45. The B oard ha d not obtained the appe llant's SSA rec ords at that time. R. a t 1 6 8 , 1 7 0

. I nit s d is c u s s io n , h o w e v e r , th e B o ar d me n ti o n e d th e SS A d e c is io n , an d s tate d : " We

rec og nize that the ve tera

n has been found entitled to disa bility benef

its fr om the [S SA] , but we ar e not persuade d that h e i s p ermanently and totally

disabled within the meaningof [38 U.S.C . 1501, 1521(a) (then sec tions 501 and 521) and the r eg ulations thereunde r]." R. at 45-46. A motion for B oard r econside ration filed in Apr il 1990 wa s d en i ed in Februa ry 1991. R a t 60 . N o a

pp e a l w a s fi led to t

he Cou rt . AVAF or

m 1- 9 ( Ap pe a l to the B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Appea ls), to which was attached a statement re q u es t i n g reope ning of the non-ser

vice- connec ted pension claim, was rec eived by VA on April 26, 1991. R. at 76. VA rec eived a formal a pplication to reope n the appe llant's non- service -conne cted pe nsion claim in J une 1991. R. at 113. An Octobe r 1994 RO decision def

err ed conside ration of the claim until the appellant' s SSA medica l rec ords wer e4

rec eived. R. at 168, 170, 185. VArec eived the S S A re cords sometime be tween O ctober and Dec ember

1994. R. at 184; Appel lant' s Br ief (B r.) at 13. Subsequently , by an RO dec ision dated Dec emb e r

2 1 , 1 9 9 4 , th e a

p p e ll an t w a s g r an te d

an e xtr a s c h e d

u la r r a ti n g o f to ta l a n d p erma nent dis a bil ity and g ra nte d n on -s e rv ic e -c on ne c te d p e ns ion

. R at 184

. Th e RO a ssi g ne d a n e ff e c tiv e date of June 1991 for the pen s i o n awa rd. R. at 9. I n making its decision, the RO relied in par t on the appellant' s newly

obtained Social Secur ity

medical r ecor ds. The RO stated: [N] umerous eva luations and medica l reports since the [appellant' s 1983 closed he ad i n jury ] provided by

the [S SA] show veter an suff eringfrom impairments which restric t his capac ity

to perfor m basic work a ctivities

. . . . Considering the nature of v et er an ' s disability

and other

fac tors, such as, the ve tera n' s ag e, educ ation, limit ed work skills and occ upational bac kg round includin g h i s long a nd well-e stablished unemploy ability

and Social Secur ity

disability

being his only

source of income, entitlement to pension is concede d.
R. at 184. The a ppellant filed, in September 1995, a Notice of Disag ree ment (NOD ) stating that he "disa g ree [d] with y our ef fec tive date of

claim for . . . N SC pension . . . ." R. at 7 3 6

. I n the 1997 decision her e on appe al, the B oard de termined that a statement on the April 1991 VA 9 form filed by the appe llant was an i nformal c laim pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5110(a) a nd 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(r) (1996), a nd that he was, acc ording ly , entitled to an April 1991 ef fec tive date f

or the a war d of nonservice -conne cted pension benef its. R. at 8- 10. The Boa

rd found that the appellant prese nted no le g a l ba sis to " ne g a te and

ig no re the Ma

rc h 1 99 0 f

ina l B oa rd de c isi on " and mov e the e ff e c tiv e date b a c k t o t h e d a t e o f

h i s o r i g i n a l ( D e c e mb e r

1 9 8 4 ) c l a i m o r

t h e d a t e o f h i s N o v e m b e r 1 9 8 3 i n j u r y. R. at 10.

II. AN AL YSI S A. Arguments 1 and 2: Expos ure to Ag ent Ora ng e and O ther Toxins, and PTS D Stressors T h e B o ar d

re m an d edt o t h e R O f

o r f u rt h er d ev el o p m en tt h e q u e s t i o n o f t h e ap p el l an t 's expo s u re t o Age n tOr an ge a n d o th er t o x i c c h em i ca l an d

b i o l o gi ca l s u

b s t an ce s wh i l e s er v i n g o nb oard the U.S.S. Gran v ill e S. Ha ll , and the qu es t i o n o f what stressors the appe llant experience d during

se rv ic e wi th r e sp e c t to his PTSD . R. a t 14 . T his Court ' s jur isd ic tio n to re vie w B oa rd de c isi on s is limit ed by

statute to review

of those B oard de cisions that are final. See 38 U.S.C. §§ 7252(a),5

72 66 (a ); Ma

y e r v . B ro wn , 3 7 F .3 d 6 18 , 6 19 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 4)

. Cla ims that hav e be e n r e mand e d to the RO by

the B oard a

re not ripe fo r re v i ew by

this Court. See Lin k

v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 39, 47 (1 99 8) ; Ma rlo w v . W

e st , 11 Vet.App. 53, 55 ( 1999); see also 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100 (1999) ( Boa rd

re mand no t a fi na l de c isi on

of the B oa rd ). Th e se iss ue s, inc lud ingthe qu e sti on wh e the r 3 8 C. F .R. § 3.151(a) (1999) a

pplies to treat the a

ppellant' s 1984 pension cl ai m as a claim for c ompensation perta ining to the r emande d matters, ca nnot be consider ed by

the Court until such tim e as the Boa rd has re ndere d a fina l determination on them. Se e Gr e e n v. W est , 11 Ve t.A

pp . 4 72 , 4 76 (1 99 8) ; Talon v. De rwinski , 3 Vet.App. 74 ( 1992). B. A rg ument 3: Error in 1999 B oard D ecision The Court has no jurisdiction over the appellant's a lleg ations of er ror in a 1999 de cision of the B oard g ranting total disabilit y due to a se rvice -connect ed closed he ad injury . The notice of appea l (NOA) here is lim ited to the 1997 Boa rd dec ision; t here has been no NOA filed with respe ct to the 1999 dec ision. See 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a) (Court ha s jurisdiction to review only Boa rd dec isions that are fi na l, a

nd on ly wh e re an N OAis t ime ly

fi le d) ; see also Prenzler v. D erwinski , 928 F.2d 392, 393-94 (F ed. C i r. 1 9 91) (Court' s appellate jurisdiction derives exclusively from statutory

g rant of

a uth or ity pr ov ide d b y

Con g re ss a

nd may no t be e xten de d b e y on d th a t pe rm itt e d b y law) ; Skinner v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 2, 3 ( 1990).

C. A rgume nt 4 : Re tr oa c tiv e No n- Se rv ic e -C on ne c te d Pe ns ion B e ne fi ts Th e a pp e lla nt a sse rt s th a t he is e nti tle d to re tr oa c tiv e pe ns ion ben e fi ts f or tot a l di sa

bil ity purs ua nt t o 3 8 C. F .R. § 3. 15 1 (b ) (1 99 9) , on the ba sis that he fi le d a c la im f or re tr oa c tiv e be ne fi ts within one y ear

of application for pension bene fits. A g rant of e ntitlement to ret ro ac t i v e pension benef its is an ex ception to the rule that the ef fec tive date of

an aw ard for a

g rant of a

pension is the date f rom fac ts found or date of cla im, whichever is later. See 38 U. S.C. § 51 10 (a) ("Unl e ss specific ally

provided other

wise in this chapter , the ef fec tive date of

an awa rd based on an orig inal claim, a c laim reope ned after adjudication, or a claim for an increase , of compe nsation, depende ncy
and ind e mni ty

c omp e ns a tio n, or pe ns ion sh a ll b e fi xed

in a c c or da

nc e wi th t he fa c ts f ound , b ut s ha ll

no t be e arl ie r t

ha n th e date of

re c e ipt of

a pp lic a tio n th e re fo r. " ); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.400 (1999) (" Ex cept a s otherwise provided, the eff ective date of . . . an aw ard of pension . . . will be the date of

rec eipt of the c laim or the date entitlement ar o s e, whicheve r is the later ") . A claimant may not6

rec eive a n awa rd of retroa ctive benef

its with an eff

ective date prior to the e arlier of one y ear

befor e the date of

the cl ai m an t 's ap p lication for be nefits or one y ear befor e the date of a dminist rative deter mination of the entitlement. See 38 U. S.C. § 511 0( g ) (" I n no ev e nt sha ll suc h aw ard or inc re a se be re t roac tive for more than one y ear from the date of a

pplication there fore or the date of

a dmi nis tr a tiv e de te rm inatio n o f e nti tle me nt, wh ic he ve r i s e arl ie r. " ); M c C a yv
. B r o wn , 9 Vet.App. 18 3, 18 8 ( 19 96 ) ( " se c tio n 5 11 0( g ) w a s c learly in ten de d to lim it m a ximuma mou nt o f r e c ov e ra

ble

re t ro ac t i v e b en ef

i t s t o o n e y ea r p ri o r t o t h e f i l i n g o f a nap p l i ca t i o n " ( ci t i n g Vi gla s v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 1, 3 ( 1994)))

. A pension awa

rd m ay be effec tive ear lier t han the date of re ceipt of the claim re sulting in an

awa rd only if: (1) the ve tera

n specific ally

claims entitlem en t t o re t roactive bene fits separately or toge ther with the c laim for dis ability pension, and the claim for retroa ctive benefits is rece ived by VA " within one y ear from the date on which the ve tera n beca me per manently and totally

disabled , " 38 C.F .R. §§ 3. 15 1( b) (1 99 9) (e le me nt 1 ); se e W ils on v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t.A

pp . 1 03 , 1 08 (1 99 3) ; Sm ith v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 429, 431 ( 1992); (2) f or claims rec eived on or af ter Oc tober 1, 1984, the dis a bil ity is n ot t he re su lt o f t

he ve te ra n' s own wi llf

ul misc on du c t (e le me nt 2) ; and (3 ) t he dis a bil ity is "so incapacitating that it preve nted hi m or her from filing a disability

pension claim for

at least the fi rs t 30 da y s imme diate ly fo llo wi ng the date on wh ic h the ve te ra n b e c a me pe rm ane ntl y

and tot a lly dis a ble d, " 38 C.F .R. § 3 .4 00 (b )( 1) (i i) (B ) ( 19 99 ) ( e le me nt 3 ); se e W ils on , s up ra . The recor d does not support a conc lusion that the willful mi sconduct e lement is at issue. Howe ver, the appellant ha s not fulfilled the re quirements of e ither ele ment 1 or ele ment 3. As to element 1, the appe llant filed his first claim for pe nsion in Dece mber 1984, a nd filed applications to reopen throug h 1991, the last of which r esulted in an a war d by the B oard w ith an eff ective date of April 1991. The ear liest me ntion of the appellant' s desire for r etroa ctive pension benef its is a statement in his appe al of the 1994 RO decision, rec eived by VA on Jul y

3, 1995. See R. at 33 7. Th e a

pp e lla nt a sse rt s, in e ff

e c t, ( B r. a t 23) , th at he sh ou ld b e de e me d to have be c ome perma nently disabled for

the purpose of

the re troac tive pension bene fit provision as of the De cembe r 1994 RO decision g ranting him non- service -conne cted pension benef its, thus making the J uly

1995

re qu e st f or re tr oa c tiv e be ne fi ts t ime ly . H ow e ve r, that 1995 re qu e st ca nn ot fa ll w ith in t

he re qu isi te one-y ear period of e lement 1 as required by § 3.151(b) because VA re ceive d it more than four y ear s7

a f t e r t h e A p r i l 1 9 9 1 e f

f e c t i v e d a t e f

o r s u c h d i s a b i l i t y. As to element 3, there is no evidence that incapa city ever preve nted the appe llant from filing

a pen si on cla im , a s r e qu ir e d b y § 3 .4 00 (b )( 1) (i i) (B ). Se e R. at 21 -2 7, 37 ,1 13 . T he Cou rt ho lds , acc ording ly , that th e requirements for retroa ctive pension be nefits under §§ 3.151 and 3.400(b)( 1)(ii)(B ), both su pra , have not be en met. Finally , as to arguments previously raised by the appellant but implicitl y rec og nized in his brief a s unavailing , Br . at 24, neither 38 C.F.R. § 3.201(a) (1999 and ear lier versions) (dee ming e vidence rec eived by the SSA in support of a claim for Social Security old a g e, survivor, or disability benef its to have been rec eived on the same date by VA) nor the statut or

y pr ov isi on it impl e me nts , 38 U.S. C. § 5105 (b ) (d e e min g a c la im f or su c h So c ia l Se c ur ity benef its to be tr ea t ed as a

n application for

VA bene fits under c hapter 13 of title 38 of the United States Code), provides a

basis for retroa ctive pension benef its. The se provisions apply , in the event of the de a th o f t

he ve ter an, on ly

to a surv ivo r' s c la im f

or VAde pe nd e nc y

and ind e mni ty compensation. Cf. Murincsak v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 363, 369-70 (1992) (§ 3.201(a) and sec tion 5105 have "no a

pplication to the merits" of a cla im for total disability based on individual unemploy ability). D. Ar g ume nt 5 : CU E Cl a ims 1. CUE in the 1990 Board Dec ision The appellant asser

ts CUE in the M arc h 1990 Boa rd decision on the basis that VA in 1990 fa ile d in its du ty to a ssi st h im b y

ob ta ini nga

c e rt if ie d c op y of his Soc ia l Sec ur ity fi le , in c lud inga ll med i ca l reports ther ein. See dis c us sio n o f d uty to a ssi st, infra, a t Part

E. Th e a

pp e lla nt a lso

c on te nd s th a t th e 19 90 de c isi on c on ta ins CU E be c a us e it ig no re d e vid e nc e sh ow ing that the SSA in Fe bruar y 1989 had g rante d him total dis ability benef its and because it also ignor ed other evidenc e of un e mpl oy a

bil ity . F or

the fo llo wi ngre a so ns , th e Court re je c ts t he a pp e lla nt' s a rgume nts

. First, a failure of t he duty

to assist cannot be the ba sis for a CUE c laim. Se e Ba ldw in v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 1, 7 ( 1999) (" a bre ach of the dut y to assist

. . . cannot form the basis of a CUE claim); Caf fre yv . B ro wn , 6 Vet .App . 3 77 , 3 83 -8 4 ( 19 94 ); se e als o H ay re , 188 F.3d at 1330-32 (ratify ing Caf fre y, s up ra ). Se c on d, the Court ' s a uth or ity to c on sid e r c la ims of

CU E i n B oa

rd de c isi on s is premised upon, inter

alia, 38 U.S.C. § 7111, which took e ffe ct on November 21, 1997. See P u b

. L. No. 105-111, 111 S tat. 2271 (1997) (the provisions of P ub. L . 105-111 “a pply to any deter mination8

ma de be fo re , o n, or

a ft e r t he date of the e na c tme nt. ” ). Se c tio n 7 11 1 r e qu ir e s th a t su c h a rgume nts must be raised to the Boa rd in the first instance a

nd decide d by

the B oard on the merits; they may not be ra ised in the first instance on appea l to the Court. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 11 1( e ); Le dfo rd v . W est , 136 F.3d 776 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998) (holding that this Court lacke d jurisdiction to hear a CUE claim ra ised for the f irst time on appeal) . The rec ord shows that the appellant made no CUE claim to the Boa rd in 1997, but arg ued only

that cer tain medical e vidence , among numerous medical r eports conside red by the B oard in 1990, supporte d his contention that he wa s unemploy able. R. at 1078. The re cord also shows that the Boa

rd made no deter

mination with respe ct to CUE in its 1990 decision. S ee R. at 1-17. Third, eve n wer e the c laim properly befor e the Court, and e ven had the rec ord at the time of the 1990 Boa

rd decision contained all of the appellant' s Social Security rec ords, a claim o f C UE would fail in lig ht of evidenc e also in the rec ord in 1990 indicating that he wa s not totally disabled, R. at 42-45, 439, 458, 621, 630-31, 650, 653. Se e Cri pp e n v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 412, 418 (1996) (CUE is prese nt only

where there is an err or that is "unde batable, so that it can be sa id that

re a so na ble min ds c ou ld o nly

c on c lud e that t he ori g ina l de c isi on wa s f a ta lly fl awe d. " ); Eddy

v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.A pp . 5 2, 57 (1 99 6) (m or e tha n a n a sse rt ion

of a dis a g re e me nt a s to ho w t he fa c ts

wer e weighe d or evaluated is require d to raise a valid claim of CUE) ; F

ugo v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 40 , 4 3-4 4 (1 99 4) (" e ve n w he re the pr e mis e of e rr or is a c c e pte d, if

it i s n ot a

bs olute ly c le ar t hat a differ ent re sult would have ensue d, the er ror c omplained of c annot be, ipso fac to, clear and

un mis ta ka ble " ); se e als o Russell v. Principi, 3 Ve t

. A p p
. 3 1 0 , 3 1 3 (1 9 9 2 ) ( en b an c) ; 6 4 Fe d

. R eg. 2135-36 (1999) ; 38 C.F.R §§ 20.1400 - 20.1410 (1999). 2. Other CUE Claims The a ppellant asser

ts clear err or in both the 1994 RO dec i sion and the Mar ch 1997 B oard decision (considering the 1994 RO decision on appe al) on the ba sis that they also should have take n into consideration the 1989 SSA awa rd of total disabilit y

(g ranting an ef

fec tive date f

or some Social Se c ur ity purp os e s in

19 83 ) a nd have thu s a ssi g ne d a

n e ff e c tiv e date fo r p e rm ane nt a nd tot a l di sa bil ity for VApension purposes a s of the Decembe r 1984 date of his orig inal claim. Br

. at 10. The Court understands this ar g ument as alleg ing CUE in both decisions. For the foll owing rea sons, the Court

re je c ts the se argume nts

.9

First, a s to a c la im o f CU E in th e 1 9 9 4 RO d e c is io n , a CU E c la im w o u ld b e " a collater al att ack o n a fi nal RO deci si on ." See D onovan v. G ober , 10 Vet.App. 404, 407 (1997), aff' d sub nom

. Do no v an v . W

est , 158 F.3d 1377 ( Fe d. Cir. 1998), cer t

. denied , 119 S.Ct . 1255 (1999); Phillips

v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 25, 31 ( 1997) ; see also 38 U. S.C. § 51 09 A (p ro vid ing fo r CU E c la ims a s to prior, fina l, RO decisions). Where, as here , an RO dec ision is appealed dire ctly to the Boa

rd, it does not become f

inal. See 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( c ) ( RO de c isi on is r e nd e re d n onfi na l by

tim e ly a pp e a l to Boa rd). Ac cording ly , the appe llant may not bring a CUE cla im a s to the nonfinal 1994 RO dec ision. See Link, 1 2 V e t.A

pp . at 45 (R O de c isi on s re nd e re d non fi na l by tim e ly a pp e a l to the B oa

rd are no t,

a s a ma tte r o f l aw, su

bje c t to CU E c la ims ); Be

st v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 322, 325 ( 1997) (a ppellant cannot r aise CUE with re spect to rating de cision that is not final). Second, as to CUE in t h e 1 9 9 7 Boa rd dec ision on appeal he re, se ction 7111, as discussed above, doe s not allow review of a claim for CUE in a B oard de cision unless such claim has f irst been submitt ed dire ctly

to the Boa

rd for consideration. S

ee L ed ford, supra; Carpenter v. Gobe r , 11 Vet.App. 140, 144 ( 1998) (" the new section 7111 does not on its face apply unless the claimant ha s a lr e a dy

su bmi tte d to VAa

c la im o f C UE " ). Th is c la im h a s im pe rm iss ibl y

be e n ma de fo r t

he fi rs t time on appea l to the Court. Third, a claim of CUE a pplies to a Boa

rd d ec i s i on that is on direct appea l to the Court. Although the Court may consider a

collater al attac k on a dete rmination made by the B oard as to CUE in a prior Boa rd decision, as a matter of law there can be no CUE as to the Boa rd dec ision directly

on appea l. S

ee 38 U.S.C.§ 7111(a) (" I f evide nce e stablishes [C UE], the prior de c isi on sh a ll b e re ve rs e d o r r e vis e d. " ) ( e mph a sis a dd e d) ; se e als o Car pe nte r, su pra (sec tion 7111 applies only

wher e a c laim of CUE " in a prior B VA dec ision" has be en submitted to VA).

E. Ar g ume nt 6 : D uty

to A ssi st The a ppellant spec ifically

argued to t he Board in a January 1997 written pre sentation that VA fa ile d in its du ty to a ssi st h im b y

ob ta ini nghis SSA re c or ds a ft e r r e c e ivi nga c op y of the SSA d e c is io nin

1 9 8 9 , an d

th a t t h e SS A r e c o r d s c o n s e qu e n tl y w e r e n o t b e f

o r e th e B o ar d

w h e nit made its 1990 decision. R. at 1078. The Boa rd in the decision on appea l did not specifically addre ss that question, but has, rather, stated only that the "appellant ha s prese nted no leg al basis for" neg ating the 19 90 de c isi on , a

nd tha t th e 19 90 de c isi on

wa s " ne ve rt

he le ss fi nal, c utt ingof

f t he pe ns ion

c la ims whi ch p reda te i t. " See R

. at 1 0

. T h e first que stion the Court must decide is whether it has10

jurisdiction to consi d er this iss ue. An RO de cision, which is not of rec ord but ref ere nced by

the Board (R . at 9 ), and

wh ic h n e c e ssa

ri ly wo uld have be e n ma de in o r a ft e r t he De c e mbe r 1 99 4 RO decision, aw arde d the appe llant no n -s er v ice- connec ted pension and a ssigne d an ef fec tive date of June 19 91 fo r the pe ns ion awa rd

. Th e a

pp e lla nt fi le d an NO D in Se pte mbe r 19 95, spe c if ic a lly contesting for the first time the effec tive date of the pension awa rd. R . at 736. The U .S. Court of Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit ( Fe dera l Circ uit) has stated that the issue of eff ective date c an g ive rise to its own NOD. In Barrera v. Gobe r , 12 2 F .3 d 10 30 , 10 32 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 7) , th e F e de ra l Cir c uit considere d two NODs, one perta ining to the rating of a disability and one pe rtaining to the eff ective date of that ra t i n g, and held that multiple NODs may be filed w ith respec t to mult iple issues

c o n c e r n ing one claim. Se e als o G ra nth am v . B ro wn , 114 F.3d 1156, 1158- 59 (F ed. Cir. 1997) (sepa rate NODs c onfer

jurisdiction as to separate elements of a claim, e.g., service c onnection and rating of disability); Ha ns on v . B ro wn , 9 Vet.App. 29, 31 ( 1996). The a pp el lant' s NOD wa s filed (1 ) w ith in t

he re qu isi te on e -y e ar p e ri od fo r fi lin g , set fo rt

h in 38 U. S.C. § 7 10 5( b) (1 ) ( " [NO D] s ha ll be filed w ithin one y ear fr om the date of mailing of

notice of the result of initial review or deter mination"), and (2) on or af ter Nove mber 18, 1988, se e Bu c k le yv . W est , 12 Vet.App. 76, 81- 82 (1998) ( "Court ha s jurisdiction to review only those final BVA decisions prior to which an N OD wa s filed on or a fter N ovember 18, 1988 , as to an under ly ing de cision of an RO or othe r ag ency of orig inal jurisdiction") (citing Veter ans' J udicial R eview Act (VJ RA), Pub. L . No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 ( 1 9 8 8 ) (found at 38 U.S.C.§ 7251 note)). Grantham , 114 F.3d at 1158-59 (sepa rate NODs c onfer

jurisdiction as t o separ ate elements of a claim, e.g ., service connec tion and rating of disability). Ac cording ly , the Court clea rly has jurisdiction over this issue. The Court next notes that, because the appe llant served for a pe riod of 90 day s or more during a period of wa

r, and the re w as medica l evidence of total disability and evide nce that he met the re qu isi te inc ome sta

nd ard be fo re the B oa

rd a t th e tim e of

its 19 90 de c isi on , th e a

pp e lla nt' s c la im for non- service -conne cte d p en sion was then we ll gr ounded. R. at 19, 33-34, 43- 45, 365. S ee 38 U. S.C. § 1 52 1( a ); Va rg as -G on za le

z v . W est , 12 Vet.App. 321, 328 ( 1999). Con se qu e ntl y , und e r c ur

re nt law, VA ha d a du ty to a ssi st the a pp e lla nt in d e ve lop ingthe fa c ts pertinent to his well-g rounded pe nsion claim, including obta ining a ll rele vant SSA recor ds reg arding his disabil ity

and employ ability

. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7( a ); Vo e rth v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 117, 12111

(1999) ( included in the sec tion 51 0 7 (a ) d u t y t o assist "is the re sponsibili ty of VA to obtain a

ny
re le va nt r e c or ds fr om t

he [SSA]. " ); Ba k

e r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 163, 169 (1998) (when VA put on notice of SSA rec ords prior to issuance of a f inal d ecision, the B oard must see k to obtain the

rec ords); Murincsak, 2 Vet.App. at 370 (under section 5107(a) , VA has a statutory duty to acquire bo th t he SSA de c isi on

a nd th e su

pp or tin g me dic a l r e c or ds pe rt ine nt t o a c la im) ; Ma so rs v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 181, 188 ( 1992) (where VA has SS A dec isions determining disability and unemploy ability

for SSA purposes, VAis require d to obtain SS A r e c o r d s relatingto those decisions). The question now become s whether the Boa rd' s failure to fulfill its duty to assist in 1990 kept open the claim then be fore it, thus poss ibly allowing for the a

war d of an ear lier eff

ective date f

or the nonservice -conne cted pe nsion benefit. There are curr ently

two statutorily

auth o ri z ed means to obtain re evaluation of a final VA benef its deci s i o n
. A fi n al decision disallowing a c laim may be re vised based upon a

showing of

c le ar a nd un mis taka

ble e rr or in a pr ior de c isi on by the Se c re tary

or the B oa rd purs ua nt t o 3 8 U .S. C. §§ 5109A and 7111, or

reope ned base d upon submissi on of new a nd materia l evidence pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 5108. I n Hayre , the U.S. C ourt of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit created a nonstatutory

means to obtain re view of a previously denied claim. That court held that a bre ach of the duty to assist is not t h e ty

pe of e rror

that can pr ovide the basis for a CUE cla im in accor dance with this C ourt' s case law. Ha y re , 1 88 F .3 d at 13 33 -3 4; se e Ba ldw in , 1 3 V e t. A p p. at 7; Ca f f rey , 6 Vet.App. at 383 -8 4

. Howeve r, the F eder al Circuit went on to hold that "[i]n cases of g rave pr o c e d u r a l e r r or .
. . RO or Bo ard d eci si on s ar e no t f in al f or p urp os es o f di rect app eal ." Ha y re , 18 8 F .3 d at 13 33

. (C iti ng a s e xamp le s o f c a se s in vo lvi ngg ra ve pr oc e dura l e rr or : Tab laz on v . B ro wn , 8 Ve t.A pp . 3 59 , 3 61 (1 99 5) ; Ha uc k v . B ro wn , 6 Ve t.A

pp . 5 18 , 5 19 (1 99 4) ; Ku o v
. D e rwi nski , 2 V e t.A pp . 6 62 , 6 66 (1 99 2) ; Ashley v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 3 0 7 , 311 (1992)) . "Abrea ch of the duty to assist in which the VA failed to obta in pe rtinent SMRs specific ally reque sted by the claimant and fa iled to provide the c laimant with notice explaining the defic iency is a proce dural err or of, at least, compa

rable g ravity

that vitiates the finality

of an RO de cision for purpose s of direc t appea l." Id. This Court has recently held, in Sim mo ns v . W est, that Hayre does not requir e the tolling of the underlying f

inal RO decision for a " g arde n varie ty " br eac h of VA' s duty to assist. Sim mo ns v . W

est , 13 Vet.App. 501, 509 ( 2000), reconsidere d , __Vet

. Ap p
.

_ _ , slip op. at 9 (Aug ust 30, 2000). The12

Court in Simmons no te d th a t: No t only do we be lie ve that Ha y re does not

re qui re that a " g arde n varie ty " br eac h of VA' s duty to a ssist, i n the deve lopment of a c laim that is well gr ounded, be c onstrued a s to lli ngthe fi na lity of an und e rl y ing RO de c isi on , but we a lso be lie ve that it wo uld b e u n w is e f

o r th is Co u rt to extend Hayre to e nc omp a ss s uc h a du ty -t o- a ssi st vio la tio n. At

so me po int , th e re is a

ne e d for fi na lity

wi thi n th e VAc la ims adjudication proc ess; thus, the tolling of finality should be reserve d for inst ance s of

" g ra ve pr oc e dura l e rr or "

-- e rr or that ma y de pr ive a c la ima

nt of a fa ir op po rt un ity to obtain entitlements provided for by law and r eg ulation.
Id. (Emphasis in orig inal.) The Sec reta

ry argue s persua sively

that, at the time of the 1990 de cision, the scope of the Secre tar y 's duty

to assist concer

ning the procur ement of SSA rec ords was not c lear ly define d. Secre tary ' s Motion for Reconsider ation at 6-8. In contra st to the situation in Hayre , wher e ther e wa s a spec ific VA Adjudication ProcedureManual M21-1 pr ov isi on pr e sc ri bin g the ste ps to b e take n to ob ta in SMRs , in this ca se the re we re no ana log ou s M21-1 provisions r equiring the procur ement of SSA rec ords i n 1990. The diss ent asserts that in 1990 the B oard w as under a statutorily

presc ribed d u t y p u rs u an tt o 3 8 U. S

. C

. § § 5 1 0 6 , 5 1 0 7 (s ec t i o n s 3 0 0 6 an d 3 0 0 7 i n1 9 9 0 ) t o o b t ai nt h e ap p el l an t 's SSA records. Sec tion 5107(a) r equire s that "T he Secre tary shall assist such a cla imant in developing t h e fa ct s p er t i n en t t o t h e cl ai m
. S u ch as s i s t an ce s h al l i n cl u d e r eq u es t i n g inf or matio n as desc ribed in section 5106 of this title." (Emphasis added)

. Section 5106 provides, "T he head of any Fe dera l depar tment or ag ency

shall provide such inform ation to t he Se c re tary

a s th e Se c re tary

may re qu e st for pur poses of de termining elig ibilit y for or amount of benefits, or verifying othe r inform ation wi th

re sp e c t th e re to. " (E mph a sis a dd e d) . ( I n 1 99 0 b oth se c tio ns 30 06 and

30 07 we re ide nti c a l in substance to the c urre ntly renumb er ed s ec tions 5106 and 5107, with the exception that the term "A dminist rator" was used in plac e of the curr ent term "Sec reta ry ")

. The dissent ar g ues that in 1990 the B oard ha d a cle ar duty under se ctions 3006 and 3007 (c urre ntly 5106 and 5107) to obtain the appellant' s SSA rec ords, m aking any future Court prec edent or Manual 21-1 provisions irreleva nt reg ardingits duty

to obtain those SS A re cords. The plain languag e of sections 3006 and 3007 clearly ind ic a te s th a t th e Se c re tary ' s d uty is to requ e st inform ation fr om o the r f e de ra l a g e nc ie s, no t records. Th a t w a s th e state of the law i n 1990. Whil e the B oard ne ver dire ctly reque sted information fr om the SSA, it utiliz ed the ne cessa ry13

inform ation contained in the F ebruary 1989 SSA decision in making its 1990 decision. Additionally , Dr. Simpson, whose m ed i ca l opinion was relied upon in the 1989 SSA dec ision, testified at the a

ppellant' s Boa

rd hea ring . The B oard c lear ly

rec eived inform ation in satisfaction of the applica

ble law in 1990. There fore , even unde r the dissent' s position, t he B oard, in 1990, fulf illed its statutory

duty

. The Court' s case law re ndere d afte r the Boa rd issued its decision rec og nized the scope of the Secre tary ' s duty

to assist to i n cl u d e the obligation to request re levant SSA rec ords as discussed

su pra . I n light of the fac t that the Secre tary ' s duty to assist was not well def ined at the time of the decision in 1990, the Court believe s that it would be unfair, w ith the benef it of hindsight and the knowledg e of subse quent ca se law, to c onclude that the B oard, unde r the duty to assist, would have been r equire d to reque st the SSA re cords. The Secre tary corr ectly asser ts that it did not become clea r that th e Se c re tary ' s d

uty to a ssi st r e qu ir e d r e qu e sti ngthe sp e c if ic re c ords rel ie d u

po n b y the SSA until after ther e wa s judicial review of VA' s proce dures. Under Simmons , not e ve ry br e a c h of the du ty to a ssi st c on sti tut e s e rr or su ff ic ie nt t o v iti a te a f i n al d ec i s i o n
. I nt h i s ca s e, t h e r ec o rdre fl ec t s th at , wh i l e th e Bo ar d h adn o to b t ai n edt h e ap p el l an t 's SSA re c or ds a t th e tim e it m a de its Marc h 1 99 0 d e c isi on (R . at 41 -4 6) , th e B oa

rd did take the SSA decision into considera

tion when making s its decision. The appe llant was aw are of the e x istence of his SSA file and submitt ed the favor able Febr uary 1989 SSA decision to VA. R. at 45, 1328, 34. Both the SSA and the B oard de cision discuss the September 1987 EE G re su l t s and re ports and testing c onducted by

Dr. Simpson and Dr. Juts ky

. R. at 42-44, 1332-33. Dr. S impson, whose re port the SSA re lie d u

po n, te sti fi e d at th e ve te ra n' s B oa rd he ari ng
. R. a t 41 , 43

. Al tho ug h the B oa rd did

no t sp e c if ic a lly re qu e st the SSA re c or ds a s w ou ld b e re qu ir e d und e r c ur re nt c a se law a

nd pr oc e dure s, the ve tera n did rec eive the be nefit of having the Boa rd consider

his SS A dec ision and underlying

me dic a l e vid e nc e a s p art

of its de c isi on makin g pr oc e ss. I n li g ht o f t he fa c t th a t Ha

y re is a jud ic ia lly

cre ated de parture from statutoril y mandated r

ules g overningthe finality of VA de cisions, Ha

y re should not be rea d broadly as a ba si s fo r d i s re garding fina lity in situations not involving " g rave pro cedu ral erro r." Simmons instructs t h at s u ch er ror must be of the kind that "may deprive a cla im ant of a fai r op po rtun it y to ob tai n ent it lem ent s pro vi ded for by law and regul ati on ." Simmons , 13 Vet.App. at 509, reconsidere d , __Vet.App.__, slip op. at 9. The B oard' s failure to procure the14

SSA re c o r d s a t th e t i m e o f t h e M ar c h 1 9 9 0 d e c i s i o n w a s n o t an e r r o r o f s u c h m a g n i tu d e tha t it dep ri v ed the a

ppellant of a

fair oppor

tunity to obtain a bene fit provided by law. The Court holds that, beca use there was a

dear th of clea r authority

to guide the B oar d i n 1 9 9 0 co n cer ning the pr oc ur e me nt o f SSA re c or ds , the B oa rd ' s fa ilure to ob ta in the SSA re c or ds , w hil e it w ou ld c ur re ntl y
c on sti tut e a

br e a c h o f t

he du ty to a ssi st, did no t g ive ri se to a g ra ve pr oc e dura l e rr or

c omp ara ble to that in Hayre

.

III . C ON CL USI ON Any appea l with respec t to the appellant' s arguments 1, 2, 3, and 5, discussed in Parts I I .A., B., a nd D. above , is DI SMI SSED. The decision of the B oard is other wise AF FI RMED.

K RA MER, Judge , concur ring in part and dissenting in part: As the author of the opinion in thi s case that was withdra wn, I happily concur with Parts I I .A, B ., C., and D., of the majority opinion. However , I cannot ag ree with the m ajority ' s approa ch and c onclusion in Part I I .E.,

and Idis se nt t o th a t e xten t. As a pr e lim ina

ry ma tte r, Ino te that I

sh are the ma

jor ity ' s c on c e rn

re g ard ingthe p os sib le implications of a broa d rea ding of the dec ision of the United S tates C ourt of Appe als for the Fe dera l Circuit (Fe dera l Circuit) in Hay re v. W est , 1 8 8 F. 3 d

1 3 2 7 , 1 3 3 2 -3 5 (F ed

. C i r. 1 9 9 9 ), i n cl u d i n g, absent statutory

authority , the vitiation of the finality of a V A dec ision. See id. at 1333 (VA' s brea ch of d u t y t o as sist by

failing to obtain specifica lly reque sted servic e medica l rec ords (SMRs), and failing to so notify

claimant, is "g rave proce dural e rror " justifying holdingotherwise f inal VA de c isi on op e n) ; see also 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) (VA has duty to assist in development of well-g rounded

c la im)

. Th a t sai d, the re is n o q ue sti on that Ha y re is binding pre cede nt, and there is no question that t h e a p p e l l an th e r e s u

b m i t t e d a w e l l

- g r o u n d e d n o n - s e r

v i c e - c o n n e c t e d

p e n s i o nc l a i m
. C o n s e qu e n t l y, VAha d a du ty to a ssi st i n th e de ve lop me nt o f t hat c la im that in c lud e d, in the ma jor ity ' s w or ds ,

" ob ta ini nga ll r e le va

nt S [oc ia l] S[e c ur ity ] A[dm ini str a tio n ( SSA )] r e c or ds reg ard inghis dis a bil ity andemp lo y abi li ty ," ante at ___, slip op. at 11, and that the B oard br eac hed that duty when it fa iled to seek a nd obtain SSA medical rec ords af ter re ceipt of a

n SSA decision determining that, as of Ma y 1985, the appe llant was totally disabled and una

ble t o undertake any

employ ment. Record ( R.) at 45,15

16 8, 17 0, 43 2- 33 ; se e Vo e rth v . W est , 1 3 V e t.A

pp . 1 17 , 1 21 (1 99 9) ; Ba k

e r v . W est , 11 Vet.App. 163, 16 9 ( 19 98 ); Murincsak v . Derwinski , 2 V e t

. A p p
. 3 6 3 , 3 7 0 ( 1 9 9 2 )

. N e v e rt h e l e s s , t h e m a j o r i t y, relying on the Court's de cision in Sim mo ns v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 501 (2 0 0 0 ), reconsidere d , ___ Ve t.A pp . _

__ (Augus t 30 , 2 00 0) , h a s c re a te d a c on str uc t w he re by

a br e a c h o f t

he du ty to a ssi st i n
eac h case must of nece ssity be mea sured by

its deg ree of importance . For the following rea sons, the majority ' s analy sis is flawed. F ir st, VA ' s d

uty to as sis t in

the de ve lop me nt o f a

c la im atta c he s o nly

wh e re a c la ima nt f ir st has submitted a well-g rounded c laim. See 38 U. S.C. § 5 10 7( a ); Epps v. Gobe r , 126 F.3d 1464, 1469 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 7) . A lth ou g h a we ll- g ro un de d c la im i s a " pla us ibl e" c lai m, t

hat is , a c la im that is meritorious on its own or capable of being substantiated, Murphy v . Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 78, 81 (1990), a claim that i s well grounde d does not nece ssarily war rant a n awa rd of ve tera

ns' benef its (but a cla im that warra

nts benefits is alway s well g rounded)

. Se e, e .g ., Va rg as -G on za lez v . W

est , 12 Vet.App. 321, 328 (1999) (discussing evidence nece ssary to establish entitlement to non-servic ec on ne c te d p e ns ion ); se e als o Ro se v . W est , 1 1 V e t.A

pp . 1 69 , 1 71 (19 98 ) (e vid e nc e ne c e ssa ry to

e sta bli shse rv ic e c on ne c tio n) ; Cal uz a v . B ro wn , 7 Vet.App. 498, 506 ( 1995 ) ( s a me ) , aff' d per curiam , 78 F .3 d 6 04 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 6) (t a ble ). Thus , wi thi n th e " manif e stl y pr o- c la ima

nt" VAbe ne fi ts sy stem, Ha

y re , 188 F.3d at 1333, the purpose of the duty to assist is for VA to undertake the

nece s s a r y evidentiar

y development to, in essenc e, dete rmine if the qua ntum of evidenc e ca

n be ra ised from that suff

icient to well g round a c laim to that sufficient to bring the evidenc e into equipoise. See 38 U. S.C. § 510 7( b) (w he re a pp ro xima te ba lanc e of

po sit ive and

ne g a tiv e e vid e nc e e xists reg ardingmateria l issue, benef it-of-doubt in resolving such issue g iven to claimant); Haye s
v . B ro wn , 5 Ve t.A

pp
. 60 , 69 -70 ( 19 93 ) ( be ne fi t of do ub t do c tr ine a

pp lic a ble wh e re e vid e nc e is i n

" e qu ipo ise " ); Gilbert v. De rwinski , 1 Ve t.A pp . 4 9, 53 (1 99 0) (s a me ). I n oth e r wo rd s, the purp os e of the du ty to a ssi st , with respec t to each and e very well-g rounded c laim, is for VA to obtain the evidenc e nec essar

y to determine whether an award of be nefits is warr anted. In such a sc heme, ther e
c an b e no " ma

jor " or " min or " vio la tio n of the du ty to as sis t; ev e ry a c tio n ta ke n p ur su ant t o th a t duty is t o o bta in the mis sin g qu antum of ev ide nc e that may make the dif fe re nc e in an

awa rd of be ne fi ts. Se c on d, the ma

jor ity ba se s its dif

fe re nti a tio n be tw e e n ma

jor and min or br e a c he s o f t he du ty to assist on the Court's stateme nt in Simmons that " Ha y re do e s n ot re qui

re t h a t a ' g ar d e nv a r i e t y'16

brea ch o f VA's du ty to ass is t . . . be con st rued as t ol li ng th e fi nal it y of an un derl y in g RO d eci si on ". Simmons , 13 V e t.A

pp . at 50 8 ( e mph a sis in o ri g ina l) , reconsidere d , ___ Vet.App. ___, slip op. at 9. The majority

fails to acknow ledg e, however, that such l ang uag e was mere dictum, and that the Court in Sim mo ns never

theless also conc luded that the appe llant there " ha[d] not shown that an extant and applicable VA duty

to as s i s t was viol ated" and that " such a f ailing" was " fata l to the Hayre relief [sought]." Simm ons, 13 Vet.App. at 507, reconsidere d , ___ Vet.App. ___, slip op. at 8. Moreover , the Sim mo ns Court, in e ssence , distinguished betwee n a case involving potential evidenc e that the

c la ima nt e a sil y wo uld be a ble to obt a in on his or he r ow n, su c h as w he re " the ve te ra n c ou ld r e a dil y have ob ta ine d a

me dic a l e xami natio n f

ro m a pr ivate ph y sic ian an d sub mit te d th e re su lts ," and a c a se involving alr eady -existi ng evidenc e in the possession of VA(" VA was i n control of e vidence

nece ssary to prove [the] claim"), a nd conclude d that the latter situation would re prese nt a " g rave pro cedu ral erro r." Simmons , 1 3 V e t. A p p
. a t 5 08 , r ec o nsidered , _

__ Ve t.A pp . _

__ , s lip op . at 9 (citing Veter ans B enef

its Admini stration L etter 20- 99-60 at 1 (Aug

. 30, 1999) (deeming SMRs and VA medica l center

rec ords to be in VA c ustody)). Althoug h what is involved in this case is SS A, rathe r than VA , rec ords, it is clear that VA knew that such re cords e x isted and we re in the posse ssion of the F eder al g overnme nt. Clearly , then, the case befor e us is much more ana logous to the latter, i.e ., a " g ra ve pr oc e dura l e rr or ," tha

n to the for

me r, i.e ., a

" g ard e n v ari e ty

br e a c h, " a s d e sc ri be d in Simmons

. Th ir d, de sp ite the B oa

rd ' s a c kn ow le dg e d b re ach of th e duty to a ssi st h e re , th e ma

jor ity declines to hold open the 1990 Boa rd dec ision on the basis that, at the time of that dec ision, the law pert ain in g to V A's dut y

to ass is t b y ob tai ni ng S S A reco rds "was n ot cle arl y defi ned ." An te at ___ , slip op. at 12. By

this, the majority

appar ently

means that at the time of the 1990 B oard de cision there was no VA Adjudication P r o ce d ure Manual M21- 1 (

Manual M21-1 ) provision, or other int e rn a l V A i ssu anc e , e xtan t th a t r e qu ir e d V A t o und e rt a ke the a c tion that it fa ile d to do (i .e ., to obtain SSA records a fter r ece iving notice of an SS A dec ision awardingthe appe llant benef its on the basis of total unemploy ability), and that the Court's case law holding to that e ffe ct had not y et bee n issued. An te at ___, slip op. at 12 ; se e Hay re , 1 8 8 F. 3 d at 1 3 3 1 -3 2 (d i s cu s s i n g VA Adjudication ProcedureManual M21-1 , Part VI , Para. 6.04(b), requiring VA to make supple mental re quest for SMRs wh e n in iti a l re qu e st re su lts in obt a ini ngon ly pa rt ia l r e c or ds ); see also Masors v. D erwinski ,17

2 Vet.App. 181, 188 ( 1992) (VAfailu re t o o b t ai n SSA records a fter r ece ipt of SS A dec ision deter mining unemploy ability

is breac h of duty

to assist). Howeve r, the majority ignor es that, at the time of the 1990 B oard de cision, Congr ess had mandated that VA' s duty to assist a well-g rounded

c la ima nt " sh a ll i nc lud e re qu e sti nginf or ma tio n a s d e sc ri be d in

se c tio n 3 00 6 of t

his tit le ." 38 U. S.C. § 3007(a) (1988) ( rec odified in 1991 as 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a) by Pub. L

. No. 102-40, § 402(b)( 1), (d)( 1), 105 Stat. 238, 239). F ormer se ction 3006 provided that " [t ]he head of a ny Fe dera l depar

tment or ag ency shall provide such information to [ VA] as [VA] may reque st for purpose s of deter mining

e lig ibi lity fo r o r a mou nt o f b e ne fi ts o r ve ri fy

ing oth e r inf

or ma tio n with re sp e c t the re to. " 38 U. S.C. § 3 00 6 ( 19 88 ) ( re c od if

ie d in 19 91 a s 3 8 U .S. C. § 51 06 by Pub . L . N o. 10 2- 40 , § 40 2( b) (1 ), 10 5 St a t. 238). Thus, in the prese nt case , at the time of its 1990 decision, t h e Bo ar d 's duty to obtain the appellant' s SS A re cords , wh i ch wer e ce rtainly highly pertinent to the his pension cla im, was expli citly outlined by

statute. Se e ge ne ra lly

Ha y re , 1 88 F .3 d at 13 31 (r e c og nizi ngthat " [r]e a so na ble eff orts by the VA to obtain re cords r eg ardingmedical history from other

Fe dera l d ep ar t m en t s or ag encie s are an important part of the VA ' s aff irmative duties under

[former sec tion 3007(a) a nd] 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a)" ); Ma so rs , 2 Ve t.A pp . at 187 -8 8. Th e fa c t th a t V A h a d n ot s e e n f it t o s e t f or th that duty in a Manual M21-1 provision and that the Court had not y et specific ally so held, there fore , is irrele vant. Contrary

to the majority ' s view, an te a t __ _, sli p o p. a t 12 , in

lig ht o f s uc h a

statut or ily presc ribed oblig ation, the Secr etar y ' s argument that "at the time of the 1990 decision, the scope of the Secr etar

y ' s duty to assist concer

ning the procur ement of SSA rec ords was not c lear ly define d," sh ou ld b e re

je c te d. I nd e e d, g ive n the statut or y re qu ir e me nt, the ma

jor ity ' s c ha

ra c te ri zat ion

of thi s argument as " persua sive," and it s deter mination that it there fore would be "unfa ir to conclude that th e Board , u nd er t he dut y

to ass is t, sh ou ldhav e req ues ted th e reco rds rel ied up on by th e [ S S A] ," id., sim ply is ine xplic a

ble

. I n su m, I be lie ve the re wa s n o ambi g uit y a s to the B oa

rd ' s d uty in 1 99 0 to

se e k a nd ob ta in t he a pp e lla nt' s SSAre c or ds

. Fo u rth, eve n assuming that there w as such a n ambig uity , howeve r, and that the two-tiere d

a p p r o a c h to b r e a c h e s o f th e d u ty to a s s is t a d o p te d b y th e ma jo r it y an d b y th e pane l in Simmons is appropr iate, such that in order to hold an otherwise f

inal decision open unde r Ha y re , it must first be de te rm ine d w he the r a

br e a c h o f a

du ty to a ss is t "'may

de pr ive a

c la ima nt o f a fa ir op po rt un ity to18

ob tai n en ti tl eme nt s p rov id ed fo r by law andregul ati on ,'" ante at ___, sl i p o p. at 13 (quoting Simmons , 13 Vet.App. at 508, r e considered _

_ _ Ve t

. Ap p
. _

_ _ , s l i p o p
. at 9 ), t h e m aj o ri t y 's evaluation as to why

there has bee n no such depr ivation here is prob lematic. Without further analy sis, the ma

jority simply seems to conc lude that the " dear th of clea r authority

to guide the B oard in 1 99 0 c on c e rn ingthe pr oc ur e me nt o f S SA r e cord s" e qu a te s to no " de pr iv[atio n] of a fa ir op po rtun it y ." An te at ___, slip op

. at 13. Howeve r, the two concepts ar e not equatable. The former g oes to the cla

rity of the re quirement; the latter g oes to the impact on the a ppellant of not mee ting the re quirement. In other wor ds, the forme r is proce dural a nd the l atter is subst antive. Can ther e be

any do ub t that the fa ilure to un de rt a ke e ve n a " va g ue " pr oc e dura l re qu ir e me nt can n ever th e le ss

" de pr ive a c la ima nt of a fa ir op po rt

un ity " and

thu s r e su lt i n s ub sta

nti a l a dv e rs e imp a c t to a

c la ima nt? Moreove r, in the pre sent ca se, it is clear from the r ecor d that the B oard' s failure to obtain the appellant' s SS A medica l rec ords in 1990 deprive d the appellant of the opportunity to obtain pension benef its at that tim e and resulted in the almos t 5-y ear delay in the award to the appellant of pension benef its. Under the major ity ' s own statement of f acts, the B oard in 1990, althoug h it acknowledg ed the appe llant's SSA awa

rd decision, essentially ignor ed the exis tence of the a ppellant' s SS A medica l

rec ords and their

pertinenc e to the question of his une mploy ability

. Wit hout the benef it of having all of that evide nce be fore it, the Boa rd stated: " We rec og nize that the [appellant] has been found entitled to disabilit y

benef its from the [ SSA] , but we are not persua ded that he is perma nently and totally disabled within the meaning " of the laws g overningveter an s ' b enef its. R. at 45-46. Sub se qu e ntl y , h ow e ve r, wh e n th e a pp e lla nt atte mpt e d to re op e n h is p e ns ion c la im, the RO

rec og nized that VA should hav e o b t ained the a ppellant' s complete SSA medical re cords, a nd declined to make a dec ision on t h e cl aim to reope n until it had obtained the rec ords from SSA. R. at 16 8, 17 0, 18 5. Up on re c e ipt of t he S S A recor ds , th e RO awa rd e d p e ns ion

e nti tle me nt i n Dec ember 1994, stating: "[N]umerous evaluations and medical repor ts

. . . provided by

the [S SA] show [the appellant] sufferingfrom impairments which restric t his capa city to pe rfor m ba sic work

a c tiv iti e s.
. . . [C]onsi de ri ng
. . . h is l on g and we ll- e sta bli sh e d une mpl oy a

bil ity and Soc ia l Se c ur ity disability being h i s o n l y s ource of income, e ntitlement to pension is conceded." R. at 184. From such a r ecor d, it is obvi ous that, despite the fa ct that the B oard in 1990 had bef ore it some of the

same e vidence that wa s b ef o re SSA when it made its determination of une mploy ability , see an te19

a t __ _, sli p o p. a t 12 , th e su m of the e vid e nc e c on ta ine d in the a pp e lla nt' s SSAme dic a l r e c or ds , fi na lly ob ta ine d b y VA in 199 4, tip pe d th e ba lanc e and re su lte d in

the awa rd of pe ns ion be ne fi ts. Thus , c on tr a ry

to t he ma jor ity ' s c on c lus ion

that the a pp e lla nt wa s not de pr ive d of a f a ir op po rt un ity to obta i n a benefit, se e an te at ___, slip op. at 13, the deprivation of more than 4 y ear s of pension benef its clearly rests upon the B oard' s brea ch of its duty to assist in 1990. F if th, the fa c ts o f t

his c a se fi t sq

ua re ly int o the sc e na

ri o c on te mpl a te d by the F e de ra l Cir c uit in Hayre as re quiring the vitiation of the finality of a V A dec ision. I n Ha

y re , anRO ma de a

sin g le reque st to the N ational Personnel Records Center for SMRs perta ining to the veter an' s claim for a

ne rv ou s c on dit ion , a

bo ut w hic h it

ha d b e e n in fo rm e d by the ve te ra n. Al tho ug h the RO did no t ob ta in the SMRs , p ri or

to d e nyingthe c la im i t ne ith e r i nf or me d th e ve te ra

n th a t it di d no t ob ta in t

he m, sug g ested that the ve tera

n obtain th e m h im s elf, nor sug g ested the submission of alternative evidenc e. That decision was not appea led and be came final. Se e Ha y re , 188 F.3d at 1329, 1332. The vete ran subsequently

was aw ar ded ser

vice c onnection for

post-traumatic stre ss disorder (PTSD), whic h decision he appea led on the basis that the R O denial contained c lear and unmistakable e rror

(CUE) and that he w as entitled to an e ffe ctive date based upon his orig inal, denied c laim for a nervous condition. Id . at 1329-30. The Fe dera l Circuit cited sections 5107 and 5106, formerly sections 3007

and 30 06 (a s d isc us se d a

bo ve ), in h old ingthat V A' s d uty to a ssi st i n th e de ve lop me nt o f a c la im included the makingof more tha n a sing le, unfulfill ed, request for SMRs (i.e., recor ds in the hands of ano the r F e de ra l a g e nc y

) a nd a lso inc lud e d an ob lig a tio n to no tif y a c la ima nt o f i ts f a ilure to o bta in

su c h r e c or ds and g ive the c la ima nt the op po rt

un ity " to ind e pe nd e ntl y

a tte mpt to o bta in t

he [re c or ds , or] to subm it a lternative evidenc e" prior to making a deter mination. Id. a t 13 32 ; se e als o Sc ha fra th v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 589, 593 (1991) (duty to assist require s VA either to "obtain the r ecor ds befor e dec iding the c ase or to expl ain[ the] failure to do so") ; VA' s Adjudication Proce dure Ma nual M21-1, P art VI , Para. 6.04( b), supra. That cour t then c on c lud e d that a

br e a c h o f s uc h d

uti e s to a ssi st amounted to a "g rave proce dural err or
. . . that vitiates the finality " of the underly ing ag ency

decision. Ha y re , 188 F.3d at 1333. Finally , the Hayre co u rt h el d t h at n o re m ed y wo u l d b e a v ai l ab l e t h ro u gh the ve te ra n' s CU E c la im " be c a

us e Mr

. Ha

y re c ann ot pr ov e that the mis sin g SMRs wo uld manif e stl y chan ge the ou tco me o f t he 1 97 2 rat in g deci si on ." Id. ; se e, e .g ., Ba ldw in v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 1, 7 (1 99 9) (b re a c h o f d

uty to a ssi st c ann ot f

or m ba sis of c oll a te ra l a tta c k on fi na l de c isi on thr ou g h c la im20

of CU E) ; see also 38 U. S.C. § 71 11 (e ) (c la ims of CU E in f ina l B oa rd de c isi on mus t be ra ise d in

fi rs t instance to B oard)

. Her e, as in Ha

y re , the B oard c lear ly

brea ched its duty

to assist the appellant whe n it failed to seek and obtain pertinent re cords in the ha nds of another

Fe dera l ag ency , the exist ence of which it was awa

re, f ailed to notify

the appe llant that it had not obtained them, and fa iled to notify him that he c ou ld i nd e pe nd e ntl y

ob ta in t he m or su bmi t a lte rn a tiv e e vid e nc e , a ll p ri or to d e nyinghis c la im. (To the e x tent that the majority attempts to limit the rea ch of section 5106 (f ormerly section 3006) to "infor mation," a s contraste d with "r ec ords," Inote that the for mer e ncompasses more than the latter, whic h is a specif

ic ty pe of the former

. See W EB S TER ' S N EW W O R L D D I C TI ONAR Y 693 (3d Coll. Ed. 1988) [ here inafter W EB S TER ' S ] (i n fo rmation is, inter alia, " knowledg e ac quired in any

manner ; fac ts; data; learning ; lore. . . a pe rson or a g ency answe ring questions as a ser vice to other s") ; W EB S TER ' S at 1122 (a

rec ord is, inter alia, " any

thing that is w ritten down and pre serve d as evide nce; [an ] ac c ount o f e ve nts ; . . . the kn ow n or re c or de d fa c ts ab ou t anyon e or any thi ng " ). Mo re ov e r, to sug g est that the re cords in question do not constitute "inf ormation as desc ribed in sec tion 5106," " for pu rpo ses of det erm in in g el igi bi li ty for or amo un t of b enef it s, " an te , slip op. at 12 (quoting se ction 51 07 (a ) a nd se c tio n 5 10 6, re sp e c tiv e ly ), sim ply " wo n' t pl ay

in P e or ia .") I n a dd iti on , a lso a s in Ha y re , the appellant had no possi ble CUE re medy for the br eac h. (I

note that, in its 1997 decision, the B oard state d that the appe llant presente d no leg al basis " to neg ate a nd ignor e the Ma

rch 1990 final B oard de cisio n
. " R

. at 1 0

. ) F inally , althoug h Iacknow ledg e that the ve tera n in Hayre had asked f o r VA as sistance in obtaining his SMR s prior to the RO making the denial, a nd that the

a pp e lla nt h e re ha d no t, su c h d ist inc tio n is wi tho ut e ff e c t. A s su c c inc tly

state d b y the F e de ra l Cir c uit ,

" [i]f a ve te ra

n, wh o is later

a b l e t o o b t a i nc o u n s e l o r

s e r e n d i p i t o u s l y dis c ov e rs a br e a c h o f t

he du ty to as s i s t , has no rem edy , t hen th e du ty to ass is t b ecom es a h ol lo w ob li gati on ." Ha y re , 188 F.3d at 1334 (e mphasis added)

. There fore , the finalit y of t he 1990 Board de cision should be held to be vitiated under Ha

y re , and the matter

rema nded for further adjudication. See Simm ons , 13 Vet.App. at 508, reconsidere d

___ Vet.App. ___, slip op. at 9. Consequently , Iam unable to a g ree with the majority ' s rea soning or conclusion with respe ct to P art I I .E ., and Ithe re fo re re sp e c tf

ull y dis se nt t o th a t e xten t.