Opinion ID: 209561
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Allegation of a Clear and Unmistakable Error

Text: Mr. Proceviat contends that the Board erred in finding no CUE in the November 2008-7113 5 1989 rating decision. 1 A clear and unmistakable error is “a very specific and rare kind of error . . . that when called to the attention of later reviewers compels the conclusion, to which reasonable minds could not differ, that the result would have been manifestly different but for the error.” 38 C.F.R. § 20.1403(a) (2008). § 20.1403(d) identifies examples of situations that are not clear and unmistakable error. See § 20.1403(d). Among these examples, § 20.1403(d)(3) states that “disagreement[s] as to how the facts were weighed or evaluated” cannot raise a CUE. Id. On appeal, Mr. Proceviat argues that the RO erred in assigning a 60 percent disability rating. Both the Board and Veterans Court explained that determinations concerning the application of the diagnostic code do not support a finding of CUE because such decisions involve the weighing and evaluation of the evidence under § 20.1403(d)(3). The Board found and the Veterans Court agreed that although Mr. Proceviat “had marked deformity of his hands and feet due to RA … [t]here … [was] no indication … that the veteran required assistance with his activities of daily living.” In the Appeal of Richard A. Proceviat, Bd. Vet. App. Docket No. 95-18 908 at 23. Because Mr. Proceviat has not raised a CUE, this court dismisses Mr. Proceviat’s appeal. DISMISSED COSTS Each party shall bear its own costs. 1 Mr. Proceviat asserts without explanation or analysis that his CUE claim is also governed by “the cases of Moody, Roberson, Hodge, Andrews, Szemraj, and Richardson and VA General Counsel Opinion 4- 2004.” Attachment to Claimant-Appellant’s Brief at 1, 4. The cited cases and the VA General Counsel Opinion are inapposite and do not apply. This court cannot consider the Andrews decision as no identifying citation is provided. 2008-7113 6