UNITE D STATES COURT OF A PPEALS FO R VETE RANS C LAI MS

N O

. 97- 526

G AR Y D. B RA DLEY , A P P E L L A NT ,

V

.
ANTHONY J. P RI NCI PI , S EC RET AR

Y O F V ETERA NS A FF AI RS , A PPELLEE

.
B e fo re H O L D A W A Y , I V E R S , a n d G R E E N E , Ju dge s .

O R D E R

O n J un e 9 , 1999, this C our t i ss ued an orde r af

f i r m i ng a J anuar

y 1997 decision of the Boa rd of Ve tera

ns' Appea ls (BV A or B oard) which determined t hat t he VA reg ional office (VARO) did not commit clear a

nd unmistakable erro r (CUE) in deny ing the appellant' s claims on eig ht dif fe re nt o c c a sio ns be tw e e n N ov e mbe r 1 97 0 a nd No ve mbe r 1 98 2. Th e a

pp e lla nt a rgue d fo r the fi rs t t i m e o n appea l to this Court a new CUE the ory , namely that the B oard' s J anuar

y 1997 decision contained CUE to the e x tent that the Board failed t o find CUE in the VARO decisions between 1971 and 1976 for

the fa ilure of those de cisions to consider total disability due to unemploy ability

(TDIU) as a po s s i b l e cl aim . The a ppellant appe aled to the F eder al Circuit, which re manded the c ase f or clar ification as to whe ther this Court found that it was juri s d i cti onally barr ed fr om addre ssing the issue prese nted for the first time by the appellant befor e us, or whether we de clined to addr ess the issue, opting instea d to inv o k e t h e t h eo ry of exhaustion of remedie s. Whi le this Court's June 9, 1999, order

was in err or, to the extent that it affirmed the January 1997 decision of the B oard r ather than dismiss t he ca se, the ult imate effec t of t he dis position was not in err or. Ther efor e, we shall now dismiss the case, not under a theory of ex haustion, as contemplated by the Feder al C ircuit' s decision wh ic h r e mand e d th e c a se , b ut r athe r f or la c k of jur isd ic tio n o ve r t he CU E c la im r a ise d f

or the fi rs t time here on appea l. Such action pre vents u s fr o m ev errea chingthe issue of e x haustion, as we would need f

irst to have jurisdiction even to discuss the issue of exhaustion.

Be fore the B oard, the appellant a rgued that the pr evious VARO dec ision contained CUE be c a us e VA fa ile d to pr op e rl y a ssi st h im i n d e ve lop inghis c la ims , a nd fa ile d to pr op e rl y

e va luate all of the evidence of re cord. Those CUE claims wer e not pre sented to this Court on appeal. Instead, the appe llant argued for

the first time befor e us that the s ame rating decisions which he argued to the Boa rd conta i n ed C UE fo r failure of the duty to assist and for fa ilure to proper ly evaluate, now contained CUE ba sed on t h e VA R O's failure to consider a possible TDIU claim base d on the evidenc e then of

rec ord. This new CUE claim, base d on a fa ilure to addre ss TDIU, was not ra ised befor e the B oard. The Court notes that CUE claims must be allege d wi t h "some deg ree of sp eci fi cit y ." Se e Cri

pp e n v . B ro wn , 9 Ve t.A

pp

. 41 2 ( 19 96 ); se e als o F ugo v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 40 (1993). In addition, eac h theory alleg ed nec essar ily

constitutes a sepa

rate claim. An dr e v . W

est , 14 Vet.App. 7, 10 ( 2000).2

Be cause the appellant did not raise in his brief on appea l the specific CUE claims prese nted to, and a dd

re sse d by the B oa

rd , but rathe r fo c us e d sole ly on a ne w CUE c la im, tho se CU E c la ims which we re pr esente d to and addr essed by the B oard a

re de emed to have been a

bandoned. Se e Fo rd v. Gobe r , 10 Vet.App. 531 ( 1997) (issues a nd claims not pursued on ap peal a re c onsidered

a ba nd on e d) ; se e als o B uc k

linge r v . B ro wn , 5 Vet.App. 435 ( 1993). As for the CUE claim that the

a pp e lla nt p re se nte d h e re on

a pp e a l, t his Court is j ur isd ic tio na lly ba rr e d f ro m he ari ngsu c h c la ims i nth e f i r s ti n s t an c e , an d

th e r e f o r e , w e mu s td i s m i s s th i s c a s e a c c o r d i n g l y.

This Court's jurisdiction t o revie w CUE claims is based upon the "una ssailable pre mise that we do not have jurisdiction to revie w [t hem] unless it ha s been previously adjudicate d by the B oard." Andre, supra. (C i t i n g So nd e l v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 218 (1994)) . "[A] claimant may not raise f

or the first time a spec ific CUE cla im before this Court; such . . . req u es t [ s ]

. . . are not within our jurisdiction . . . . I f . . . the a ppellant has fa iled to r ai se the spec ific issue bef ore the Boa

rd, the app eal mu stbe d is mi ss ed as to th at i ss ue .

. . ." S o n d el, 6 Vet .App ., at 22 0. Ac c or din g ly , a s in Sondel , this Court will dis miss the new CUE claim as it is improperly and improvidently

raised f or the first time befor e this Court.
Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

ORDERED that t h e S ec retary ' s motion i s g rante d, and the c ase D I SMI SSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DA T E D: J a n u a r

y 2 9 , 2 0 0 1 P E R C U R I A M.