Source: https://veteranclaims.net/2009/03/16/failure-to-discuss-comply-with-38-cfr-%C2%A7-3354b/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:21:23+00:00

Document:
Michael R. Viterna, of Northville, Michigan, for the appellant.
Before GREENE, Chief Judge, HAGEL and MOORMAN, Judges.
from service barred him from receiving VA compensation benefits. Record (R.) at 1-12. Mr.
will be vacated and the matter remanded for readjudication.
being absent without leave on several occasions from May through July of 1968. R. at 103-04, 119.
denied Mr. Gardner’s petition for review. R. at 94.
72. He was diagnosed with having schizophrenia, schizo-affective type, and transferred to the U.S.
December 1971, the General Court-Martial Convening Authority, then having jurisdiction over Mr.
Prior to 2003, DD-260 was the form number for a dishonorable discharge certificate f 1 rom service in the U.S.
Navy or Marine Corps. See generally 10 U.S.C. § 1168.
merits in the first instance. Because neither party raised this issue, however, the Court will not address it.
sentence] is disapproved in toto.
other than honorable” and that he received a DD Form 260.1 R. at 17.
decision became final. See R. at 1-1398.
his discharge still remained a bar to his receiving VA benefits.2 R. at 11. This appeal followed.
because the Board failed to apply the VA standard for determining insanity set out in 38 C.F.R.
findings are the “touchstones” of the § 3.354(a) insanity definition. Secretary’s Br. at 10.
for its decision. Id. at 13-14.
under laws administered by the Secretary.
community in which he resides.
“due to disease” applies to all three circumstances provided in § 3.354(a)); see also VA Gen. Coun.
13 Vet.App. 535, 539 (2000); Zang, 8 Vet.App. at 254-55; 38 C.F.R. § 3.354(a).
“clearly erroneous” standard of review. 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(4); see Beck, supra; Gilbert v.
precise basis for the Board’s decision, as well as to facilitate review in this Court. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 7104(d)(1); Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517, 527 (1995); Gilbert, 1 Vet.App. at 57.
which placed [his] mental capacity beyond his control.” Id.
no evidence that VA has remedied the confusion we are again confronted with today. See VA Gen. Coun. Prec. 20-97.
insanity regulation, a finding of willful misconduct requires an intentional act. See 38 C.F.R.
reckless disregard of its probable consequences.”). Here, the Board’s analysis of whether Mr.
A review of the 1971 Mental Competency Board findings reveals 4 that its evaluation was limited to Mr.
understood right from wrong. R. at 11, 48, 55, 63. However, none of these reports considers Mr.
38 U.S.C. § 7261(b)(2) (Court “must take due account of the rule of prejudicial error”); Conway v.
Principi, 353 F.3d 1369, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir. 2004).
alia, fails to provide adequate statement of reasons or bases).
Initially, we reject the Secretary’s argument that the duty to assist is not triggered until Mr.
show “veteran” status by preponderance of evidence before benefitting from statutes reserved for veterans).
veteran is not yet determined).
In this matter, the Board found that there was no prejudicial error in the development of Mr.
obtained” and Mr. Gardner has not identified any records that VA failed to obtain. R. at 5.
assistance would aid in substantiating the claim”).
procurable evidence relating to the circumstances.6 See R. at 1-12; 38 C.F.R. § 3.354(b).
time of the August 1968 offenses, it should expressly state its reasons for reaching that conclusion.
See Duenas v. Principi, 18 Vet.App. 512, 517-18 (2004).

References: § 1168
 § 3
 § 3
 § 3
 § 7261
 v.

§ 7104
 v. 
 § 7261
 v.

 § 3
 v.