Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/21pdf/21-234_2b8e.pdf
Page Number: 6.0

Cite as:  596 U. S. ____ (2022) 

3 

Opinion of the Court 

This case concerns one such exception to finality: At any 
time, a veteran may ask the Board or regional office to re-
vise a final benefits decision on grounds of “clear and un-
mistakable  error.”    §5109A  (regional  office);  §7111  (the 
Board);  38  CFR  §§3.105,  20.1400–20.1411  (2021).  This 
form  of  collateral  review  was  first  adopted  by  regulation 
roughly 100 years ago.  Since at least 1928, the VA and its 
predecessor agencies have allowed revision of an otherwise 
final decision when “obviously warranted by a clear and un-
mistakable  error.”    Veterans’  Bureau  Reg.  No.  187,  pt.  1, 
§7155  (1928);  see  38  CFR  §3.105(a)  (Cum.  Supp.  1963) 
(“Previous determinations . . . will be accepted as correct in 
the  absence  of  clear  and  unmistakable  error”).  In  1997, 
Congress codified this form of review in the statute we in-
terpret today.  111 Stat. 2271. 

B 
Kevin George joined the Marine Corps in 1975 after ex-
periencing multiple schizophrenic episodes.  He did not ini-
tially  disclose  that  history,  and  a  medical  examination 
noted no mental disorders at the time he entered service. 
But less than a week into training, George had another ep-
isode and was hospitalized.  A few months later, the Navy’s
Central  Physical  Evaluation  Board  found  that  his  schizo-
phrenia made him unfit for duty and was not aggravated by
service.  App. to Brief for Petitioner 12a–15a.  George was 
then medically discharged.

Later  that  year,  George  applied  for  veterans’  disability 
benefits based on his schizophrenia.  A VA regional office
denied  his  claim  after  concluding  that  his  condition  pre-
dated  his  military  service  and  was  not  aggravated  by  it. 
The Board agreed and denied George’s appeal in 1977.  In 
so ruling, neither the regional office nor the Board expressly 
discussed the VA’s burden of proof under the presumption
of sound condition.