Opinion ID: 899508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: facts

Text: Turner served on active duty in the United States Navy from July 1972 to December 1974. In February 1976, a Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) Regional Office (“RO”) determined that Turner had been discharged from service due to willful and persistent misconduct, which is considered a discharge under dishonorable conditions under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d)(4). App. 11. Pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 101(2), a person discharged under dishonorable conditions is not a “veteran” for purposes of entitlement to VA benefits. Turner did not appeal that decision. Id. at 12. In February 1992, Turner filed a claim for VA com- pensation, asserting that he was “insane” at the time that he committed the misconduct that resulted in his discharge, but the RO determined that he was precluded TERRY TURNER v. SHINSEKI 3 from eligibility for VA benefits because he was not “insane” when the offenses occurred. Id. at 11. In July 1996, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (“Board”) considered whether Turner had submitted new and material medical and testimonial evidence sufficient to reopen the RO’s determination on the character of his discharge. Id. at 12. The Board held that the character of the discharge would not be reopened because the 1976 RO decision became final when Turner did not appeal it and because, although some of the evidence that Turner submitted was new, none of it was material. Id. at 17–18. In August 2009, Turner filed a motion for reconsideration of the Board’s 1996 decision, alleging obvious error of fact or law under 38 C.F.R. § 20.1000(a). Id. at 7. That motion was denied by the Board. Id. at 7–9. In June 2010, Turner filed a Notice of Appeal from that denial in the Veterans Court, which was dismissed as untimely. See Order I at 1. In May 2012, Turner filed a motion in the Veterans Court to recall its mandate and set aside the court’s dismissal of his Notice of Appeal. Turner submitted two letters from his treating psychologist, arguing that he was unable to timely file a motion to reconsider the Board decision because of his psychiatric condition. Id. at 1–2; see Bove v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 136, 140 (2011) (establishing that the filing period for a Notice of Appeal to the Veterans Court is subject to equitable tolling under 38 U.S.C. § 7266(a), which applies “only when circumstances preclude[] a timely filing despite the exercise of diligence, such as [] a mental illness rendering one incapable of handling one’s own affairs”). The Veterans Court considered the motion and the letters, but concluded that equitable tolling was not warranted. Order I at 3. The court noted that the psychologist had opined that Turner was incapable of rational thought and was unable to handle his own affairs in 4 TERRY TURNER v. SHINSEKI July 1996, or for any part of the 120-day appeal period following the 1996 Board decision, because he was confined for mental health reasons and was not released from that confinement until July 1997. Id. at 2. The court also noted, however, that Turner had failed to account for his “unexplained 12 years of inaction” following release from confinement or why he waited until August 2009 to file a motion for reconsideration with the Board. Id. at 2–3. Accordingly, the court found that Turner had not exercised due diligence in pursuing his appeal and denied his motion to recall the mandate and set aside the judgment. Id. In a subsequent order issued in December 2012, the court also denied Turner’s motion for reconsideration. Order II. Turner timely appealed to this court. We have jurisdiction to review this appeal pursuant to 38 U.S.C. § 7292.