Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
Page Number: 7.0

4 

GEORGE v. MCDONOUGH 

Opinion of the Court 

In 2014, George asked the Board to revise that final deci-
sion  on  grounds  of  “clear  and  unmistakable  error.”  38 
U. S. C.  §7111.    In  particular,  he  claimed  that  the  Board
erred by applying a later invalidated regulation to deny his 
claim for benefits without holding the VA to its full burden
of proof to rebut the statutory presumption of sound condi-
tion.  For  more  than  40  years,  including  George’s  time  in 
service, a VA regulation provided that the agency could re-
but  the  presumption  simply  by  showing,  according  to  a 
heightened burden of proof, that a disability predated ser-
vice.  See 26 Fed. Reg. 1580 (1961); 38 CFR §3.304(b) (1976). 
In  2003,  however,  the  VA  concluded  that  this  regulation
conflicted with the statute, which it now understood to re-
quire an additional showing (by the same burden of proof ):
that  the  veteran’s  condition  was  not  later  aggravated  by 
service.  VA Op. Gen. Counsel Precedent (VA Op.) 3–2003 
(July 16, 2003).  The VA recognized that it seemed “illogi-
cal” to require an additional showing with “no obvious bear-
ing upon the presumed fact of whether the veteran was in
sound condition when he or she entered service.”  Id., at 8. 
But it explained that the statutory text nonetheless “com-
pel[led]” this reading.  Ibid.  Based on this about-face, the 
VA confessed error in a pending case applying the regula-
tion, and the Federal Circuit agreed that this “difficult to
parse” and “somewhat self-contradictory” statute rendered
the  regulation  “incorrect.”    Wagner  v.  Principi,  370  F. 3d 
1089, 1093, 1097 (2004).  The VA ultimately amended the
regulation to resolve the issue going forward.  70 Fed. Reg.
23027 (2005).

The Board denied George’s claim for collateral relief, and 
the Veterans Court affirmed.  The Federal Circuit also af-
firmed,  concluding  that  the  application  of  a  later  invali-
dated  regulation  does not  fall  into  the  narrow  category  of 
“clear and unmistakable error” permitting revision of a fi-
nal decision under 38 U. S. C. §§5109A and 7111.  991 F. 3d 
1227 (2021).  We granted certiorari.  595 U. S. ___ (2022).