Opinion ID: 783152
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: analysis

Text: 39 The jurisdiction of this court to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. 38 U.S.C. § 7292; Forshey v. Principi, 284 F.3d 1335, 1338 (Fed.Cir.2002) ( en banc ). We have exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof brought under [section 7292], and to interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). Questions regarding the validity and interpretation of constitutional and statutory provisions are questions of law to be reviewed without deference. Santana-Venegas v. Principi, 314 F.3d 1293, 1296 (Fed. Cir.2002). We may only set aside interpretations of regulations relied upon in a decision of the Veterans Court that we find to be: (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without observance of procedure required by law. 38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(1). 40 On appeal, Mr. Lane asserts that the Veterans Court misinterpreted both 38 U.S.C. § 7111 and 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6)(ii). Because Mr. Lane challenges the interpretation of a statute and a regulation, we have jurisdiction pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292. We address Mr. Lane's contentions in turn.
41 Mr. Lane argues that the Veterans Court erred when it reviewed the Board's decision in Lane II under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(3)(A) instead of under 38 U.S.C. § 7261(a)(1). He contends that where a Board CUE claim under 38 U.S.C. § 7111 is fact based, then the deferential standard of review of section 7261(a)(3)(A) is appropriate. However, he asserts, if such a claim involves the interpretation of a regulation as it existed at the time of the original Board decision, it presents only a question of law which the court should review under section 7261(a)(1) without deference to the conclusions of the Board. Thus, Mr. Lane states that since he argued that the Board misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6)(ii), the regulation dealing with character of discharge, his appeal presented an issue of law that should have been reviewed by the Veterans Court under the de novo standard of section 7261(a)(1) rather than under the deferential standard of section 7261(a)(3)(A). He urges us to reverse and remand so that the Veterans Court can properly adjudicate his appeal of the Board's denial of his CUE claim. 42 The government responds that the Veterans Court's use of the standard of review specified in section 7261(a)(3)(A) was appropriate. It contends that although the standard recited by the court is a deferential one, it did not preclude the court from reviewing de novo pure questions of law decided by the Board in connection with Mr. Lane's CUE claim. It argues that a standard of review, such as that specified in section 7261(a)(3)(A), which freely permits correction of purely legal errors, but which accords due deference to determinations having factual aspects, appropriately accounts for the factual nature of CUE claims. The government adds that the Veterans Court properly applied section 7261(a)(3)(A) in this case by reviewing de novo the Board's interpretation of 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6). 43 Because interpretation of a statute or regulation is a question of law, see, e.g., Jensen v. Brown, 19 F.3d 1413, 1415 (Fed. Cir.1994), we hold that the Veterans Court should review de novo the Board's interpretation of a regulation in the setting of a section 7111 CUE claim. However, we see no need to decide the purely academic question of whether the court conducts its de novo review under 38 U.S.C § 7261(a)(1) or 7261(a)(3)(A). In the first place, both section 7261(a)(1) (decide all relevant questions of law) and section 7261(a)(3)(A) (otherwise not in accordance with law) necessarily contemplate de novo review of a legal issue such as the Board's interpretation of a regulation. Most importantly, however, in this case, after citing section 7261(a)(3)(A)'s standard of review, the Veterans Court addressed Mr. Lane's arguments on appeal regarding section 3.12(c)(6)(ii), and although it did not explicitly so state in its opinion, it plainly did review de novo the Board's interpretation of the regulation. The court stated that 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a) requires that a claimant `demonstrate[] to the satisfaction of the Secretary that there are compelling circumstances,' suggesting a requirement of some proof of the offered circumstances and giving the Secretary considerable, although not unfettered, discretion in weighing that proof. Lane III, 16 Vet.App. at 84-85. The court also stated that, under section 3.12(c)(6)(ii), the reasons given by a veteran for having been AWOL are to be evaluated and considered, and it concluded that it was reasonable for the Board to look to the totality of the record in order to do so. Id. at 85. Finally, the court stated: 44 [W]e interpret demonstrate to permit the Secretary, based upon the facts of a particular case, to require that a claimant do more than merely state that his or her particular situation was compelling, and evaluate and consider to permit the Secretary to do more than merely accept whatever a claimant might offer.... 45 Id. (emphasis added). Thus, the court held that, in view of the language of 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a), the Board did not err in interpreting 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6), the implementing regulation, as requiring consideration of the record as a whole. Under these circumstances, it is clear that the Veterans Court did review de novo the Board's interpretation of section 3.12(c)(6). In other words, Mr. Lane received the kind of review to which he was entitled.
46 Mr. Lane's second argument is that the Veterans Court misinterpreted 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6)(ii) by holding that it was reasonable for the Board, when ruling on his claim for VA benefits under the regulation, to look to the totality of the circumstances, including factors other than his own statements. He argues that, to the contrary, the plain language of the regulation requires the Board to consider the compelling circumstances from the veteran's point of view. 47 For its part, the government argues that the Veterans Court and the Board's interpretation of section 3.12(c)(6)(ii) is correct. The government notes that the plain language of 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a), the statute upon which the regulation is based, requires that compelling circumstances be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Secretary. Moreover, the government contends, neither the statute nor the regulation indicates that consideration of compelling circumstances must be based solely on the claimant's own statements. The government adds that such a rule would unduly restrict the adjudication process and lead to absurd results. 48 We agree with the government and hold that the Veterans Court's interpretation of section 3.12(c)(6)(ii) is correct. In our view, the Veterans Court did not err by holding that under section 3.12(c)(6), the Board can look to the totality of the circumstances, including factors other than the veteran's own statements, to determine why the veteran went AWOL. 49 To interpret a regulation, we ... look at its plain language and consider the terms in accordance with their common meaning. Lockheed Corp. v. Widnall, 113 F.3d 1225, 1227 (Fed.Cir.1997) (citing Perrin v. United States, 444 U.S. 37, 42, 100 S.Ct. 311, 62 L.Ed.2d 199 (1979)). Section 3.12(c)(6)(ii) states: 50 (ii) Reasons for going AWOL. Reasons which are entitled to be given consideration when offered by the claimant include family emergencies or obligations, or similar types of obligations or duties owed to third parties. The reasons for going AWOL should be evaluated in terms of the person's age, cultural background, educational level and judgmental maturity. Consideration should be given to how the situation appeared to the person himself or herself, and not how the adjudicator might have reacted. Hardship or suffering incurred during overseas service, or as a result of combat wounds of other service-incurred or aggravated disability, is to be carefully and sympathetically considered in evaluating the person's state of mind at the time the prolonged AWOL period began. 51 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(c)(6)(ii) (emphases added). The regulation requires that the reasons offered by the veteran be evaluated in light of the veteran's age, background, and maturity, and that the particular hardships, as they appeared to the veteran, be carefully and sympathetically considered in evaluating his state of mind at the time of his absences. In order to evaluate and consider, as required by the regulation, it is reasonable that the adjudicator be able to look to factors other than the veteran's own statements as to why he went AWOL. Stated differently, it is reasonable that the adjudicator look to the totality of the evidence in the record. Accordingly, like the Veterans Court, we interpret evaluated and considered in the regulation as permitting the Secretary to look to the totality of the evidence in the record, rather than merely accepting whatever rationale a claimant might offer for periods of AWOL. This interpretation is consistent with 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a), the statute that the regulation implements. Section 5303(a) states, inter alia, that: the discharge of any ... person ... on the basis of an absence without authority from active duty for a continuous period of at least one hundred and eighty days if such person was discharged under conditions other than honorable unless such person demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that there are compelling circumstances to warrant such prolonged unauthorized absence ... shall bar all rights of such person under laws administered by the Secretary based upon the period of service from which discharged or dismissed, notwithstanding any action subsequent to the date of such discharge by a board established pursuant to section 1553 of title 10. 52 38 U.S.C. § 5303(a) (emphasis added). 53 We agree with the Veterans Court that the statute directs [the] claimant [to] `demonstrate[] to the satisfaction of the Secretary that there are compelling circumstances,' suggesting a requirement of some proof of the offered circumstances and giving the Secretary considerable, although not unfettered, discretion in weighing that proof. Lane III, 16 Vet.App. at 84-85. This statutory directive is consistent with an interpretation of section 3.12(c)(6)(ii) that allows the Secretary to look to the totality of the evidence in the record to determine why the veteran went AWOL, rather than merely accepting the veteran's statements. Thus, when the Board, in Lane I, sought to determine whether Mr. Lane had presented compelling circumstances to warrant [his] prolonged unauthorized absence, it was entirely appropriate for it to consider Mr. Lane's statements, not in a vacuum, but in light of the objective evidence of record. As noted, in rejecting Mr. Lane's claim, the Board pointed out that there were no records of hospitalization or counseling reports to confirm treatment for any psychiatric symptomatology or substance abuse either upon return from overseas or during the time periods in which the appellant was absent from his unit. Lane I, slip op. at 9. In short, the Board properly considered whether Mr. Lane's statements regarding how the situation appeared to [him] had support in the relevant facts.