Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
Page Number: 1

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2021 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is 
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued. 
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been 
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

GEORGE v. MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF 
VETERANS AFFAIRS 

CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR 
THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT 

No. 21–234.  Argued April 19, 2022—Decided June 15, 2022 

When petitioner Kevin George joined the Marine Corps in 1975, he did 
not disclose his history of schizophrenic episodes, and a medical exam-
ination noted no mental disorders.  After George suffered an episode 
during training, the Marines medically discharged him.  George then 
applied to the Department of Veterans Affairs under 38 U. S. C. §1110 
for veterans’ disability benefits based on his schizophrenia.  A regional 
office of the VA denied George’s claim, and the VA’s Board of Veterans’ 
Appeals denied his appeal in 1977. 
  In 2014, George asked the Board to revise its final decision.  When 
the VA denies a benefits claim, that decision generally becomes “final 
and conclusive and may not be reviewed by any other official or by any 
court”  after  the  veteran  exhausts  the  opportunity  for  direct  appeal.  
§511(a);  see  §7104(a).    But  George  sought  collateral  review  under  a 
statutory exception allowing a veteran to seek revision of a final bene-
fits decision at any time on grounds of “clear and unmistakable error.”  
§§5109A, 7111; see 38 CFR §§3.105, 20.1400–20.1411.  In particular, 
he claimed that the Board clearly and unmistakably erred by applying 
a  later  invalidated  regulation  to  deny  his  claim  for  benefits  without 
holding the VA to its burden of proof to rebut the statutory presump-
tion that he was in sound condition when he entered service. 
  The Board denied George’s claim for collateral relief, and the Veter-
ans Court affirmed.  The Federal Circuit also affirmed, concluding that 
the application of a later invalidated regulation does not fall into the 
narrow category of “clear and unmistakable error” permitting revision 
of a final decision under 38 U. S. C. §§5109A and 7111. 

Held: The invalidation of a VA regulation after a veteran’s benefits deci-
sion becomes final cannot support a claim for collateral relief based on