UNITED STAT ES COURT OF AP P EALS FOR VETERANS CLAIMS

N O . 01-2036
A RT H U R H. B R OW NE , 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 IVERS and GREENE, Judges

. O R D E R
On Dec ember

3, 2001, veter an Arthur H. Br owne, pr o se, filed a Notice of

Appea l (NOA) listi ng August 1 4 , 2 0 0 1 , as the date of the B oard of Veter ans' Appea ls (Boa

rd) de cision being
a pp e a le d. Th e Se c re tary late r tr ans mitte d a c op y of a F e br ua ry 16 , 20 01 , B oa

rd de c isi on . T he re is no evidenc e pre sented indicating that the B oard issued a final dec ision to Mr. B rowne on August 14, 2001. On Dec ember

10, 2001, the Secr etar

y filed a m otion to dis miss for lack of jurisdiction,
asser ting that Mr. B rowne had not filed a n NOA within 120 day s after beingmailed notice of

the Boa rd' s Fe bruar

y 16, 2001, d ec i s i o n
. T h e C ourt notes that on J uly 29, 2002, the Secr etar

y filed a "N otice to the Court and Motion for L eave to Wi thdraw A ppellee' s Motion to Dis miss." Ther ein the Secre tary states that new counsel has been assig ned to the case , and that upon revie w of the issue, the Secr etar

y now re cog nizes "that there is support for the proposition that the Ro sle r [ v. De rwinski , 1 V e t.A pp . 2 41 (1 99 1) ,] tolli ng pr inc ipl e e xten ds to mot ion s to vac a te fi le d pur su ant t o 3 8 C. F .R. § 20.904." Motion for

L eave at 4. " ' [I ]t is well-established judicial doc trine t h at any statutory tribunal must ensure that it has jurisdiction over ea ch ca se be for e adj ud ica ti ng th e mer it s. '" Sm ith
v . B ro wn , 1 0 Ve t

. Ap p
. 3 3 0 , 3 3 2 (1 9 9 7 ) ( qu o t i n g Ba rn e tt v . B ro wn , 83 F.3d 1380, 1383 (F ed. Cir. 1996)). B eca

use this appea l presents a matter of first impression, the C ourt will deny as moot the Secre tary ' s motion for leave , and addr ess the jurisdictional issue pre sented.

In response to Court order s, the parties have filed pleading s, wit h at t ac h ed exhibi ts, that d o cu m en tth e f

o l l o wi n g:

• On Fe bruar

y 16, 2001, the B oard issued a decision findingthat Mr. B rowne did not
me e t ba sic e lig ibi lity

re qu ir e me nts fo r p e ns ion be ne fi ts.
• On Fe bruar

y 26, 2001, within 120 day s after m ail ing of notice of the Boa

rd decision, Mr. B rowne filed with the B oard a motion for rec onsideration.
• On Marc h 28, 2001, the B oard V ice Chairma n d en i ed the Fe bruar y 26, 2001,
rec onsideration motion. The denia l no t i ce sent to Mr. Br owne include d VA F orm2

0220 (Notice of Appellate Rights FollowingDenial of Motion for Reconsider ation), advising Mr. B rowne of his rig ht to appeal to this Court.

• On J une 18, 2001, withi n 120 day s after mailing of

the Vice Chairman' s Marc h 28, 20 01 , den ial of r e c on sid e ratio n, Mr . B ro wn e fi le d w iththe B oa rd a " Mo tio n to Vac ate" the Fe bruar

y 16, 2001, Boa

rd dec ision. • On August 14, 2001, the Boa rd De puty Vice Cha irman denie d the J une 18, 2001, mot ion to v a c a te . T he de nia l no tic e a g a in i nc luded a "Not ice of Ap pe llate Rig hts Fol lo wi ng Den ial of M ot io n fo r R econ si dera ti on ." Followinghis Dece mber 3, 2001, NOA, on J anuar y 31, 2002, Mr. B rowne filed a motion to amend his NOA; he re quested that the Court c onsider on appe al the Boa rd' s decisions of Fe bruar

y 16, 2001, Marc h 28, 2001, and August 14, 2001.
The Court notes that the appellant in his NOA did not mention the under lying F ebrua ry 16, 2001, Boa

rd decision or the Marc h 28, 2001, Boa rd rec onsideration denial. Neve rtheless, unde r the Court's liber al rule of

construction as to what constitutes a valid NOA, the Court will construe the
a pp e lla nt' s D e c e mbe r 3 , 2 00 1, NO A a s r e fe rr ingto the de nia l of the mot ion to v a c a te , a s w e ll a s to the under lying B oard de cision and the B oard r econside ration denia l. Se e Los h v . B ro wn , 6 Vet.App. 87, 90 (1993). The Court will therefor e deny as moot the appe llant's motion to amend his NOA.
The ultimate burde n of establishing jurisdictio n re s t s with the appellant. Se e Mc Nut t v . G .M .A .C. , 29 8 U. S. 17 8, 18 9 ( 19 36 ); Bethea v . Derwinski , 2 Vet.App. 252, 255 (1992). Pursuant to 38 U. S.C. § 7 26 6( a ), in o rd e r f or a c la ima nt t o o bta in r e vie w o f a

B oa rd de c isi on by thi s Co ur t, that decision must be final and the person adver sely aff ecte d by that decision must file a timely NOA with the C ourt. Se e Ba ile yv . W est , 16 0 F .3 d 13 60 , 13 63 (F e d. Cir . 1 99 8) (e n b anc ). To be tim e ly filed under

Rule 4 of this Court's Rules of Prac ti ce an d P ro cedur e, and pr ece dents construing 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), a

n NOA must be filed w ith the Court (or, in cer tain ci rcumstanc es, dee med
rec eived) within 120 day s after the B oard de cision is mai led to an appe llant. See B utler v. Derwinski , 960 F.2d 139, 140- 41 (F ed. Cir. 1992), overruled in part by Ba i l ey , 160 F.3d at 1368;
se e als o M

ar tin v . B ro wn , 10 Vet.App. 100, 101-02 (1997) (per curiam order ). This Court may not revie w denials of r econside ration by the B oard Chair

man in case s where i t d o es n o t alrea dy have jurisdiction by

virtue of a

timely appea l from a f

inal Boa rd dec ision. Se e Ma

y e r v . B ro wn , 37 F.3d 618, 619 (F ed. Cir. 1994), overruled in part by Bailey , 16 0 F .3 d a t 13 68

. Th e on ly e xce pti on is i n th o s e c a s e s w h e r e th e a

p p e l l an t h a s ( 1 ) f

i l e d a m o t i o n f

o r B o ar d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o n w i th i n 1 2 0 d ays a f t e r th e m a i l i n g d a t e o f

n o t i c e o f th e B o ar d

d e c i s i o n ; a n d th e n( 2 ) f

i l e d anN O A w i th i n1 2 0 d ays afte r t he Board Chairman' s denial of the reconsideration moti on. See R osler , 1 Vet.App. at 249. A
c la ima nt m ay fi le re pe a te d mo tio ns fo r B oa rd re c on si dera ti on , a

nd wh e n e a c h s uc h mo tio n is
rec eived within 120 day s of the pre vious denial, the 120-da y time limi t is star

ted ag ain upon ea ch denial. Se e Mu ril lo v . B ro wn , 1 0 V e t.A pp . 1 08 , 1 10 (1 99 7) ; Perez v. De rwinski , 2 Vet.App. 149, 150 (1992) ( per c uriam orde r).3

M r
. B r o w n e ' s F e b r

u ar y 2 6 , 2 0 0 1 , m o t i o nf

o r B o ar d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o nw a s f

i l e d w i th i n1 2 0 d ays afte r m ailing of notice of the Board' s Fe bruar y 16, 2001, decision, and thus the 120- day time period in which to file an a

ppeal wa s tolled until th e Bo ar d Vi ce Chairman' s Marc h 28, 2001, denial of
rec onsideration. See Rosler, supra. Mr . B ro wn e ' s June 18 , 2 00 1, mot ion to v a c a te wa s f

ile d w ith in 120 day s after

mailing of

the Marc h 28, 2001, rec onsideration denial, and was de nied on August 14, 2001. Mr. Br owne' s NOA was filed within 120 day s of that August 14, 2001, denial. I f the motion to vacat e an d t h e Board' s denial of that motion are the equivale nt of a motion for B oard
rec onsideration and a

denial, then Mr. Br o wne's De cembe r 3, 2001, NOAwas timely rec eived by the Court. Se e Mu ril lo and Perez , both su pra
. There fore , the question of first impression pre sented here is whether a

motion to vacate a

Boa rd dec ision that was sent to and responded to by the B oard Chairman is the equiva lent of a motion for rec onsideration, for purposes of r ender ing the underlying Boa rd dec ision nonfinal and not ripe for judicial revie w and beg inning a new 120- day appea l period, Los h , 6 Ve t.A

pp . at 89 ; Rosler , 1 Ve t.A pp . at 24 9. F or

the re a so ns that f

oll ow , w e ho ld t

hat it is.

Mr. B rowne ' s two filings with the Board, r ece ived on Fe bruar y 26, 2001, and June 18, 2001,
are no t in c lud e d in

the re c or d b e fo re the Court ; ho we ve r, the B oard's res po ns e s a re . In th e fi rs t response , the B oard Vice Chairman identified a motion for re consideration and denied the motion as not " demonstrat[ing] that the [Board] decision contains obvious e rror ." B oard' s Marc h 28, 2001, Response (Resp.) at 2. In the s econd response, the Deputy Vice Cha irman denie d a motion to vacate ; he cited Mr. Br owne' s failure to demonstrate that the B oard ha d violated any of the leg al standar ds that " wo uld

me ri t th a t it

be va c a te d. " B oa

rd ' s Augus t 14, 200 1, Re sp . at 2. B oth re sp on se s c le arl y addre ssed Mr. B rowne ' s attempt to h av e t h e B oard r eeva luate its Fe bruar y 16, 2001, decision. Compare Boa

rd' s Marc h 28, 2001, Resp. at 1 (" A decision of the Boa rd is f inal unless the Chairman order s rec onsideration, or the Boa rd, on its own motion, correc ts an o b v i o u s er ro r i n the re cord. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7103, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000) ; 38 C.F .R. §§ 20.1000, 20.1001 (1999)." ), with Boa rd' s Aug ust 14, 2001, Resp. at 1 (" A dec ision of the Boa rd is final unless the Chairma n order s rec onsideration or

v ac ate[si c], or the B oard, on its own motion, corre cts an obvious er ror in the
rec ord. 38 U. S

. C

. A. §§ 7103, 7104 (West 1991 & Supp. 2000); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.904, 20.1000, 20 .1 00 1 ( 20 00 ). " (e mph a sis a dd e d) ). Atta c he d to bo th d e nia ls i s a c op y of the No tic e of

Ap pe llate Rig hts F oll ow ing De nia l of Mo tio n fo r Re c on sid e ra tio n, wh ic h state s, " Th e e nc los e d le tte r i nf or ms y ou that the [Boar d] has denied y our m otion for reconsider ation of one or more B oard de cisions." Id.
Th e r e g u l a t i o n s d i s t i n g u i s hb e tw e e nv a c a tur an d r e c o n s i d e r a t i o no f

a p p e l l a t e d e c i s ion s. Com pa re38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a) (2001), with 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1000 - 20.1003 (2001) . A B oard decision may

be vac ated by

the B oard " at any t i m e u p on reque st of the appe llant . . . or on the Boa rd' s own motion," whe n due proc ess has been denie d." 38 C.F .R. § 20.904(a). Rec onsideration,
o nth e o th er

h an d , m ay

b e "a cc o rd edatan y t i m e . .
. o nm o t i o nb y t h e ap p el l an t

. . . o r o nt h e B o ar d 's
own motion," based on (a) alleg ation of obvious e rror of law or fac t; ( b) disco v er y o f n ew and materia l evidence in the form of rele vant service depar tment r ecor ds or repor

ts; or (c) alleg ation that an allowa nce of benef its was materia lly influence d by false or fra udulent evidenc e submitted by or on behalf of the a ppellant. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000.4

In Rosler , the Court stated: [A] lthough the j u d i cial re view per iod beg ins to run, as to a final a dminist rative ag ency de c is io n , o nth e d a te o nw h ic hth a t d e c is io nis f in a l, it s f in a li ty is d e f e ated and that judicial appe al per iod is erase d when a timely motion for a dminist rative
rec onsideration is filed within the judicial appe al p eriod a nd a new , full judicial appea l period as to the unde rly ing a g ency decision is trig g ere d when the a g ency denies the r econside ration motion. 1 Vet.App. at 249. Since Ro sle r, thi s Co ur t ha s is su e d p re c e de nti a l de c isi on s d e a lin g only wi th situations where motions for r econside ration toll the appea l period for this Court. See Murillo, Martin, and

Perez, a ll su

pr a ; se e als o Br own v . W est , 13 Vet.App. 88, 89 ( 1999) (holdingthat deter mination of whether document is motion for rec onsideration, or should ha ve been so tre ated, is made by

Court). Howe ver, a lthough the r egulat i ons distinguish betwee n vacatur and
re c on sid e ratio n o f B oa

rd de c isi on s, the y

do so on ly wi th re sp e c t to ide nti fy ingwh a t c on sti tut e s a su c c e ssf ul p e tit ion

fo r e ith er. A s to outc ome , a su c c e ssf ul r e qu e st f

or va c a tur wo uld re su lt i n nullification of the previous Boa rd decision, as would a succe ssful motion for rec onsideration. See Sm ith v . B ro wn , 8 Ve t.Ap p. 54 6, 55 0 ( 19 96 ) ( e n b anc ) ( " Thus , o nc e a [B oa rd de c isi on ] is
rec onsidered, the ' [new] decision .

. . shall constitute the final de cision of the B oard' and the pr evious [Board] decision is nullified. Boye r v. De rwinski , 1 Vet.App. 531, 532- 35 (1991)." ). The inclusion of the " Notice of

Appellate Rig hts Following Denial of Motion for Rec onsideration," by the B oard Chairman and V ice Chairma n with bo th denials, sugg ests too that the Boa rd treats both ty

pes of
m o t i o n s s i m i l ar l y.
Where a motion for

rec onsideration or to va cate is filed, there is alway s the possibili ty that th e B o a r d w i l l c o r

r e c tan y e r

r o r an d r e n d e r j u d i c i a l r e v i e w un n e c e s s ar y. See W . Penn Power Co. v. U.S. EPA , 86 0 F .2 d 58 1, 58 5 (3d C ir . 1 98 8) ; M

. M

. W in te r v

. I n te r s ta teCo m m e r c e Co m m 'n , 85 1 F. 2d 10 56 , 106 2 (8t

h Ci r. 19 88 ); Outland v. Civil Aeronautics Bd. , 2 84 F .2 d 2 24 , 2 27 -2 8 ( D. C. Cir. 1960). "Pra ctical considerations, t here fore , dictate that when [ such a motion] is filed, re view may pro perl y be d eferre d u nt il [ th e mo ti on ] has been act ed upo n. " Outland , 2 84 F .2 d at 2 27 -2 8; see also W . Penn , 8 6 0 F. 2 d

at 5 8 5

. I two u l d

al s o b e i mp ra ct i ca l an d

p o t en t i al l y

a w as t e o f t h e C o u rt 's and the pa

rties' resour ces to re quire a n appellant to prose cute both a motion for r econside ration or to vacate and an appeal to this Court, along with the c oncomitant filings. See W . Penn and Outland , both su pra
. Thus , th e re is n o p ra c tic a l di sti nc tio n f or the pu rp os e s a bo ve be tw e e n a

mot ion to v a c a te un de r 3 8 C. F .R. § 20. 90 4( a ) an d a motio n for re c on sid e ra

tio n und e r 3 8 C. F .R. § 2 0. 10 00 . We ho ld there fore that for the purposes of deter mining the timeliness of an NO A, a motion to vacate is the equivalent of

a mot ion for reconsider ation. I f a motion to vacate is filed within the judicial-appe al period, like a

motion f o r re considera

tion, it t oo defe ats the finality of the orig inal Boa

rd dec ision, which is thus not ripe for judicia l review , and a de nial of that m otion by the B oard Chair

man beg ins
anew the 120-da

y appea l period. See R osler, 1 Vet.App. at 249 (" [J ]udi cial appe al per iod is erase d wh e n a tim e ly motio n for adminis tr a tiv e re c on sid e ratio n is fi le d .

. . ." ); se e als o B ro wn, su pra ; accord W . Penn , 860 F.2d at 585 (stating that when motion is denied, judicial-a ppeal pe riod beg ins5

anew in order to pr otect rig ht to judicial review f or those appe llants not versed in " the intricac ies of th e fi nal it y

do ctr in e")

. Her e, Mr. B rowne , within 120 day s after the denial of his initial motion for rec onsideration, actively soug ht to have the B oard va cate , i.e., re view, its decision re g ardinghis claim. Cf. P er ez , su pra (r e qu e st that B oa

rd " re -r e vie w" its de c isi on

he ld t o b e mot ion

fo r r e c on si dera ti on ). As in Rosler , that motion rende red the Boa rd decision nonfinal and there fore not ripe for judicial revie w. Th e 12 0- da

y jud ic ia l- a

pp e a l per iod sta

rt e d an e w o n Augus t 14 , 2 00 1, the da y that th e B oa

rd De puty Vice Cha irman denie d the motion to vacate. Acc ording ly , Mr. B rowne ' s Dec ember 3, 2001, NOA constitutes an appe al timely filed fr om the Boa

rd' s Fe bruar

y 16, 2001, decision. Up on c on sid e ratio n o f t

he fo re g oin g , it

is
O R DE R E D th at th e Mr

. Br o wn e's De ce mb er 3 , 2 0 0 1 , NO A i s ac ce p t ed as t i m el y fi l ed

. It is further
ORDERED that Mr. B rowne ' s motion t o amend his NOAis denied as moot. I t is further
ORDERED that the Secr etar y ' s motion t o dismiss is denied. I t is further
ORDERED that the Secr etar y ' s motion for leave to withdraw his motion to dismiss is denied as moot. I t is further
ORDERED that not later than 30 day s after the date of

this order, the Sec reta

ry file with the Clerk and se rve on Mr . Br owne the de signation of the rec ord. I t is further
ORDE RED tha

t th is c a se wi ll b e re tur

ne d to th e scre e nin g jud g e and wi ll p ro c e e d in
a c c or da nc e wi th t he ru le s o f t

he Court

. DA TE D: Se pte mbe r 4 , 2 00 2 PER CU RI AM

.