UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O
. 99-794
K EN NE TH M. C ARPENTER , A PP EL L ANT ,
V
. ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RE T A RY O F V ET ER A N S A FF A I RS , A PPEL L EE
.

Be fore KRAMER, Chief Judge , and F ARL EY, HOL DAWAY, I VERS, STEI NB ERG, and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R On J une 21, 2001, the f

ull Court affirmed in pa

rt and re verse d in p ar t the April 6, 1999, B oa rd of Ve te ra ns ' Ap pe a ls d e c isi on

wh ic h f ound that th e tot a l f

e e s c ha rg e d b y the a pp e lla nt, Kenne th M. Carpenter , for his re prese ntation of veter an, Victor S. W ea t h erspoon, we re e x cessive and unre asonable . On Octobe r 18, 2001, the Sec reta ry filed a motion for r econside ration. The appell an t f

il e d a r e s p o n s e , u r g in g th e Co u rt to r e c o n s id e r th e matt e r f o r d if f e r e n t r e a s ons. Upon c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is ORDERED that the Secr etar y ' s motion for rec onsideration is denied.
DA TE D: F e br

ua ry 15 , 2 00 2 PER CU RI AM

. KRAMER, Chief Judge , dissenting: F or the re asons stated in my dissent to the J une 21, 2001, full Court opinion, Carpenter v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 64, 92-97 (2001) (en ba nc) ( Kramer, C.J ., dissenting) , Ivot ed fo r re consi deration. I n reg ard to that dissent, I note the re cent r epea l of se c tio n 4 02 of

the Vet eran s' J ud ic ia l Re vie w A c t ( VJRA ), Pub . L . N o. 10 0- 68 7, § 4 02 , 1 02 Stat. 4107, 4122 (1988) ( found at 3 8 U.S.C. § 7251 note) (" Chapter 72 of title 38, United States Code, . . . shall apply

with respec t to any case in which a notice of disag ree ment [(NOD)] is filed . . . on o r a f t e r [ N o v e mb e r

1 8 , 1 9 8 8 ] " )

. V e t e r an s E d u c a t i o nan d

B e n e f i t s E x p an s i o nA c to f

2 0 0 1 , P u b

. L. No . 1 07 -1 03 , § 60 3( a ), 11 5 St a t. 9 76 , 9 99 (2 00 1) . N e ve rt he le ss, thi s Co ur

t' s juri sd ictio n is der iv a ti v e g e n e r a ll y

o f th e B o ar d

o f V e te r an s ' Ap p e a ls ' ( B o ar d ) ju r is d ic ti o n , 3 8 U

. S. C. § 7 2 5 2 (a) , and, abse nt or igina l jur isdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 5904(c)( 2) or other wise, it would appea

r that the Boa rd' s jurisdiction is depende nt on the appellant's having filed an NOD, 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a) , (c) ; se e Ma rsh v . W

est , 11 V e t.A

pp . 4 68 , 4 70 (1 99 8) ; Ga rle jo v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 229, 232 ( 1997). Henc e, the r epea l of VJ R A § 402 has not elim inated the Court' s need to a ddress this important jurisdictional matter.2

STEI NB ERG, Judge , dissenting: I voted to g rant full Court re consideration in thi s case , for the re as o n s stated in my dissent to the J une 21, 2001, en ba nc opinion, Carpenter v. Principi , 15 Vet.App. 64, 79 (2001) (Steinberg , J ., concur ring in part and dissenting in par t), except for pa

rt I I

. C

. 1

. , reg ardingthe Court' s jurisdiction in t erms of the failure to discuss section 402 of the Veter ans' J udicial Review A ct, Pub. L

. No. 100-687, § 402, 102 Stat. 4105, 4122 (1988) [hereinaf ter VJ RA § 402], which ha s been repe aled by the Veter ans Education and Be nefits Expansion Act of 20 01 , Pu b. L . No. 10 7- 10 3, § 603 (a ), 11 5 St a t. 9 76 , 9 99 ; see also id. at § 603(d) ( making repe al of VJRA§ 4 02 a

pp lic a ble to a ll p e nd ingand

su bs e qu e nt c la ims ). Ithe re fo re re sp e c tf ull y dis se nt.