ÿWPCX Y‹†ÿ¼òåI€·f<ƒRfÚŸÿ¨ü´ò68ï¹<ÌšUbÝ yô<¿q?Î"ªöo^CÕÔô€%¹LÄ|ÿ†qK æœ=,Mž¾K*1ÖF.ÕÖ»»‚úÐø Æo}Dែ°Ö“´ß ×G‘ [¸?y®V¾êæôªF—œ#ã#ƒ”bɱ&uOÙ"ô‰¬‰tº*sd„ÿÙùNGg kN6ü8í¡í`ÜýžsÝË6ÿñM á}uã€p±#χêK@^lÿäo0Ú<"°ù·„ž¨Ò‹m ´šn]:e9¾à¥»ÎZrü"Û…S»¥±3üUKÿòƹ„íiNÈ(²½!ۼħ},ØEØ;šÀ)?h…:Ú!ŒpƒŒ$–ÌF¯~9Ѹ_¬´í5x)Øh4ãÚæ*‘&ÇsÒé0€ÌøÓi›Fàz¨\ÃÌ–, óâ¡‘n3ÿ©=8DZ™›' `2.ââB!kò˜©1s&?”%tlÿ¥Æub ÊŸ÷ÿ0*/8eÑk€Ê^ŒŒJ÷èÚM07¿ASçÌr«c‚7›zö´RE»s‘´?—zŠÃ3;§M¹ˆPþ†®Ú܉øhž"^;wj¿b\âùÕËÔ #!UN9 %‡ 04w@Á4‚$ ¦ ¬ ²-¸åNí ï^ õU>? mA˜HP LaserJet 5P,ð,,,,,ð0(@øÐ Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX( ƒ•$¡¡Ñ  Ñ ÎÏÐDÑUÒÓEÔÕÖE×ÍKn)ó–²(3|x×simmons Ï ' ' PIELJE0PIELJE .   ÈÈÈ¿ #Ñ#€Xÿÿd#ÑHån)×(î\  p`&Times New RomanÿU‹ÿÀÀÀÝ ƒƒ•!ÝÑ  ÑÝ  ÝÔ_ÔÑ€ úÑò òÓ=€XÐXdÐd=ÓñÑññÑññÒñTHIS€VERSION€INCLUDES€AN€ERRATA€DATED€SEPTEMBER€20ñÒññÓññÒñ.ñÒññÓññÒññÒññÔñ,€ñÔññÒñ2000Ô_ÔñÒññÑññÑññÕñ„ñÕññÖññÕñ3ñÕññÖññ×ñeñ×ññÑñÔ_ÔÐ ° ÐÌñÑñà@ûûìàUNITED€STATES€COURT€OF€APPEALS€FOR€VETERANS€CLAIMSó óˆÐ ˆØ ÐÌÌòòÓ  ÓNo.€98„354€Ð L œ ÐÌRichard€D.€Simmons,€AppellantÌ€Ìv.ÌÌTogo€D.€West,€Jr.,ÌSecretary€of€Veterans€Affairs,€Appellee.ÓH4°X°` ¸ hÀpÈ xÐ (#°œXHÓóóÐ À  ÐÓ‰ÓÌÌÌÓ  ÓOn€Appeal€from€the€Board€of€Veterans'€AppealsÌÓˆÓÔ‡X‚hXXXÔà@ÐÐ!ìàOn€ReconsiderationˆÐ \¬ ÐÌÌÔ#†X_PXXX‚hÒ#ÔÓ  Ó(Decided€ñËñ€€August€30,€2000ñËññÌñ€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€ñÌññÍñÔ% € ÔñÍñ€€€€)Ô‡X‚hXXX_PÔÐ ,| ÐÓPÓÌÌà  àÔ#†X_PXXX‚h¾#ÔòòMark€R.€Lippmanóó,€of€La€Jolla,€California,€ñÎñand€KennethñÎññÏñ€M.€Carpenter€of€Topeka,€Kansas,Ð øH ÐwereñÏññÐññÎñ€ñÎñwasñÐñ€on€the€pleadings€for€the€appellant.ÌÌÓ  Óà  àòòLeigh€A.€Bradley,€óóGeneral€Counsel;€òòRon€Ô_ÔGarvinÔ_Ôóó,€Assistant€General€Counsel;€òòThomas€A.Ð ¼  ÐMcLaughlinóó,€Special€Assistant€to€the€General€Counsel;€and€òòÔ_ÔCristineÔ_Ô€D.€Ô_ÔSensemanÔ_Ôóó,€all€of€Washington,Ð ¨ø ÐD.C.,€were€on€the€pleadings€for€the€appellee.ÌÓùÓÌà  àBefore€HOLDAWAY,€STEINBERG,€and€GREENE,€òòJudgesóó.Ð l ¼ ÐÌÓ€ÓÓ  Óà  àSTEINBERG,€òòJudgeóó:€The€appellant,€veteran€Richard€D.€Simmons,€appeals€through€counselÐ D"”  Ða€January€1998€Board€of€Veterans'€Appeals€(Board€or€BVA)€decision€that€determined€that€an€AprilÏ1977€decision€by€a€Department€of€Veterans€Affairs€(VA)€regional€office€(RO),€that€had€denied€VAÏservice€connection€for€arthritis€and€a€nervous€disorder,€did€not€contain€clear€and€unmistakable€errorÏ(CUE).€€Record€(R.)€at€3.€€The€appellant€has€filed€a€brief,€and€the€Secretary€has€filed€a€motion€forÏsingle-judge€Ô_ÔaffirmanceÔ_Ô;€both€parties€have€filed€supplemental€memoranda€pursuant€to€Court€order.€ÏOn€May€1,€2000,€the€appellant€filed,€pursuant€to€Rule€28(g)€of€this€Court's€Rules€of€Practice€andÏProcedure,€a€Notice€of€Supplementary€Authority€as€to€the€Court's€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔTetroÔ_Ô€v.Westóó,Ð ò+B'. Ð13Ô_ÔVet.AppÔ_Ô.€404€(2000).€€This€appeal€is€timely,€and€the€Court€has€jurisdiction€pursuant€to€38U.S.C.Ð T-¤(0 ÐÑ úÑâ  âÑ8€_PXXdìXXdì8Ñâ  âÑ  ÑÑ úÑâ  âÑ8€_PXXdìXXdì8Ñâ  âÑ  Ñðððð7252(a)€and€7266(a).€€On€May€12,€2000,€the€panel€issued€an€opinion€in€this€appeal€that€discussedÐ ° Ðin€part€the€Court's€opinion€in€òòÔ_ÔTetroÔ_Ôóó,€òòsupra.óó€€On€July€3,€2000,€the€appellant€filed€a€motion€forÐ b ÐÔ_ÔñÍñÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñÍññÌñÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑÑ úÑÑ7€ŸYXXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  ÑñÌññÊñÑ úÑÑ7€üËXXdéXXdé7ÑÑ  ÑñÊñreconsideration€of€the€panel's€opinion€in€the€instant€case.€€In€light€of€subsequent€developments€inÏñÆñÑ úÑÑ7€œ¥XXdéXXdé7ÑÑ  ÑñÆññÅñÑ úÑÑ7€œ¥XXdéXXdé7ÑÑ  ÑñÅñòòTetroóó,€in€which€a€motion€for€reconsideration€is€pending,€the€panel€has€decided,€sua€sponte,€to€reviseÐ b Ðits€prior€opinion,€although€the€result€remains€the€same.€€Accordingly,€the€appellant's€motion€forÏreconsideration€will€be€denied€as€moot.€€For€the€reasons€that€follow,€the€Court€will€grant€theÏSecretary's€motion€in€part€and€deny€it€in€part€and€affirm€the€Board€decision.ÌÌà@ððìàò òI.€Relevant€Backgroundó óà@@ìì*ìàˆÐ Þ .  Ðà  àThe€veteran€served€in€the€U.S.€Navy€from€November€1968€to€January€1970.€€R.at€14.€€HisÏservice€medical€records€(SMRs)€indicated€that€he€had€suffered€from€depression€(R.at€23,€27)€butÏcontained€no€indication€of€in„service€arthritis€(òòseeóó€R.at€17„32).€€A€February€1972€privateÐ ÷G  Ðhospitalization€discharge€report€noted€that€the€veteran€had€complained€of€"arthritis€of€large€jointsÏsince€12/20/71";€he€was€diagnosed€as€having€"[p]olyarthritis,€probably€rheumatoid,€sero[„]negative".€ÏR.at34.Ìà  àIn€September€1972,€he€filed€with€the€VARO€an€application€for€VA€compensation€or€pensionÏbased€on€arthritis.€€R.at€38„42.€€He€submitted€a€private€medical€record,€dated€September€1972,€thatÏdescribed€treatment€on€"December20,€1971,€[for]€painful€swelling...€near€the€right€sacro€iliac[sic]Ïjoint".€€R.at€45.€€In€November€1972,€a€VA€examining€physician€diagnosed€the€veteran€as€havingÏ"[p]olyarthritis,€cause€undetermined".€€R.at€62.€€The€RO€in€December€1972€awarded€the€veteranÏnon„service„connected€pension€benefits€for€his€arthritis,€effective€December€1971.€€R.at€67-68.€€Ìà  àIn€June€1974,€the€veteran€filed€a€claim€for€VA€service€connection€for€rheumatoid€arthritis,Ïand€asserted€that€his€arthritis€was€a€"direct€result€of€his€mental€depression€in€service".€€R.at€80.€€HeÏsubmitted€in€July€1974,€inter€alia,€an€April€1974€private€hospitalization€summary,€which€diagnosedÏ"[r]heumatoid›€arthritis,€œsero„negative".›€œ€R.›at€œ86.›€€An€œAugust€1974›€VA€psychiatric€examinationÏreport€noted€the€veteran's€account€that€he€œhad€"developed›€rheumatoid€arthritis€in€œDecember€1971"›Ïand€diagnosed€œhim›€as€having€"[œa]nxiety›€reaction€with€depressive€features,€moderate€only,€secondaryÏto€arthritis€œcondition".€€R.at€123.€€The€RO€in€September€1974€denied€the€veteran's€"reopened€claim"Ïbecause€his€arthritis€and€anxiety€reaction€"were€not€incurred€in€or€aggravated€by€his€period€ofÏmilitary€[service,]€nor€[was]€it€shown€that€he€had€arthritis€manifested€within€the€first€year€followingÏâ âservice."€€R.at€128„29.Ð Þ*.&8 Ðà  àIn€November€1974,€the€veteran€submitted€a€letter€from€Dr.€Herion,€a€private€physician,Ïâ âstating:¹Òð°ÒÒþ°Òà ` àÓ€ÓOn€the€basis€of€information€contained€in€[m]edical€[r]ecords€covering€hisÏillness€while€in€the€United€States€Navy€from€August€1968€to€January€1970,€it€isÏreasonable€to€presume€that€his€illness€then,€which€appeared€as€mental€depression,Ïwas€the€same€as€that€presenting€as€polyarthritis€when€I€saw€him€in€FebruaryÏ1972....€The€brief€interval€between€his€discharge€from€the€military€and€the€onset€ofÏhis€polyarthritis€would,€I€believe,€make€it€likely€that€Mr.€Simmons[']€chronic€diseaseÏwas€present€even€while€he€was€in€the€United€States€Navy.ÌÒ°‰ÒÒ°›ÒÌÓ€¹ÓR.at€149.€€In€December€1974,€the€RO€confirmed€its€earlier€denial€of€service€connection€for€arthritis;Ïthe€RO€concluded:€"Dr.€Herion's€statement€provides€no€basis€to€establish€that€rheumatoid€arthritisÏdeveloped€during€[the€veteran's]€active€military€service€or€within€the€year€presumpti[on]€periodÏfollowing€separation€from€service."€€R.at€156.€€Ìà  àIn€April€1977,€the€veteran€submitted€to€the€RO€a€private€medical€record€from€Dr.€Ford,€thatÏcontained€a€May€1970€diagnosis€of€"[a]rthritis€(type€undetermined)...€[and€n]ervous€anxiety".€€R.atÏ182.€€Later€that€month,€the€RO€confirmed€its€prior€denial€of€both€claims.€€R.at€184.€€The€veteran€didÏnot€appeal€to€the€Board€any€of€the€above€RO€decisions.€€In€May€1977,€the€RO€notified€the€veteranÏof€its€decision€in€a€letter€that€stated:€"Dr.€Ford's€statement€provides€no€basis€to€establish€serviceÏconnection€for€arthritis€and€nervous€condition".€€òòIbid.óóÐ ÷G Ðà  àIn€September€1994,€the€veteran€filed€a€claim€asserting€CUE€as€to€that€April€1977€ROÏdecision.€€R.at€316.€€It€is€unclear€whether€the€RO€had€reopened€the€veteran's€claims€and€then€deniedÏthem€on€the€merits€or€whether€the€RO€had€denied€the€veteran's€attempt€to€reopen€the€previouslyÏdisallowed€claims.€€For€the€purposes€of€this€decision,€the€Court€will€assume€that€the€RO€hadÏreopened€the€veteran's€claims€and€denied€them€on€the€merits€because€that€result€would€be€moreÏfavorable€to€the€veteran€and€because,€ultimately,€the€adjudication€of€the€instant€CUE€claim€wouldÏnot€be€affected€in€any€significant€manner€if€the€Court€were€to€assume€that€the€claim€had€not€in€factÏbeen€reopened.€€In€July€1995,€the€veteran€submitted€a€statement€in€which€he€alleged€that€inÏApril1977€he€had€been€entitled€to€a€presumption€of€service€connection€under€38C.F.R.Ïðð3.307(a)(3).€€R.at€339.€€In€February€1995,€the€RO€denied€his€CUE€claim.€€R.at€346„48.€€TheÏveteran€timely€appealed€to€the€Board.€€R.at€351,€359„60.€€In€the€January€1998€BVA€decision€hereÏon€appeal,€the€Board€denied€the€veteran's€claim€for€CUE€in€the€April€1977€RO€decision.€€R.at€3.Ð S+£&6 Ðà  àThe€appellant€filed€his€brief€in€this€case€on€January28,€1999,€and€on€April29,€1999,€theÏSecretary€filed€a€motion€for€single„judge€affirmance.€€On€October28,€1999,€the€Court€ordered€theÏparties€to€file€supplemental€memoranda€as€to€the€opinion€of€the€U.S.€Court€of€Appeals€for€theÏFederal€Circuit€(Federal€Circuit)€in€òòHayre€v.Westóó,€188€F.3d1327€(Fed.€Cir.€1999).€€SuchÐ Ç Ðsupplemental€memoranda€having€been€filed,€the€Court€will€now€proceed€to€adjudicate€this€matter.Ìò òÓ  ÓÌII.€Analysisó óÐ à 0  Ðò òòòA.€CUE€Claimóóó óÐ ?  ÐÓg%Óà  àPreliminarily,€the€appellant's€brief€states:€"Appellant€abandons€the€CUE€claim€with€respectÏto€the€nervous€disorder".€€Appellant's€Brief€(Br.)at€2,€n.2.€€Hence,€he€has€abandoned€that€issue€onÏappeal.òò€€See€Green€(Doris)€v.Brownóó,€10Vet.App.€111,€114€(1997).€Ð U¥  Ðà  àAn€RO€decision€that€has€become€final,€as€had€the€April€1977€RO€decision,€generally€mayÏnot€be€reversed€or€amended€in€the€absence€of€CUE.€€òòSeeóó€38U.S.C.€ðð5109A€(codifying€into€law€VAÐ _ Ðregulation€38C.F.R.€ðð3.105(a),€òòinfraóó);€38C.F.R.€ðð3.105(a)€(1999);€òòsee€alsoóó€38U.S.C.€ðððð5108,Ð l¼ Ð7105(c);€òòcf.óó€38U.S.C.€ðð5110(i)€(when€previously€disallowed€claim€is€reopened€and€allowed€on€basisÐ É Ðof€new€and€material€evidence€in€form€of€service€department€records,€effective€date€is€date€suchÏdisallowed€claim€was€filed).Ìà  àSection€3.105(a)€of€title€38,€Code€of€Federal€Regulations,€provides:ÌÓ€Óà8  àWhere€evidence€establishes€[CUE],€the€prior€decision€will€be€reversed€or€amended.€ÏFor€the€purpose€of€authorizing€benefits,€the€rating€or€other€adjudicative€decisionÏwhich€constitutes€a€reversal€of€a€prior€decision€on€the€grounds€of€[CUE]€has€the€sameÏeffect€as€if€the€corrected€decision€had€been€made€on€the€date€of€the€reversed€decision.Ó€¼)ÓÐ Ð Ð  Ð38C.F.R.€ðð3.105(a).€€The€CUE€claim€presented€here€is€a€collateral€attack€on€a€final€RO€decision.€ÏòòSeeóó€òòCrippen€v.Brownóó,€9Vet.App.€412,€418€(1996);€òòsee€also€Fugo€v.Brownóó,€6Vet.App.€40,€44Ð ²"+ Ð(1993).€€Ìà  àIn€òòRussell€v.Principióó,€the€Court€defined€CUE€as€follows:Ð l%¼ / ÐÓ€Óà8  àEither€the€correct€facts,€as€they€were€known€at€the€time,€were€not€before€theÏadjudicator€or€the€statutory€or€regulatory€provisions€extant€at€the€time€wereÏincorrectly€applied...€.€€[CUE€is]€the€sort€of€error€which,€had€it€not€been€made,Ïwould€have€manifestly€changed€the€outcome€...€[,€an€error€that€is]€undebatable,€soÏthat€it€can€be€said€that€reasonable€minds€could€only€conclude€that€the€originalÏdecision€was€fatally€flawed€at€the€time€it€was€made.€€Ó€­,ÓòòÐV+¦&6Ð Ð  ÐRussellóó,€3Vet.App.€310,€313„14€(1992)€(en€banc);€òòsee€alsoóó€òòBustos€v.Westóó,€179€F.3d1378,€1380Ð ° Ð(Fed.€Cir.€1999)€(expressly€adopting€the€"manifestly€changed€the€outcome"€language€in€òòRussellóó,Ð  ] Ðòòsupraóó),€òòcert.€deniedóó,€120€S.Ct.€405€(1999).€€"A€determination€that€there€was€a€'[CUE]'€must€be€basedÐ jº Ðon€the€record€and€the€law€that€existed€at€the€time€of€the€prior€...€decision."€€òòId.óó€at€314.€€"In€order€forÐ Ç Ðthere€to€be€a€valid€claim€of€[CUE],€...€[t]he€claimant,€in€short,€must€assert€more€than€a€disagreementÏas€to€how€the€facts€were€weighed€or€evaluated."€€òòIdóó.€at€313;òò€see€alsoóó€òòDamrel€v.Brownóó,€6Vet.App.Ð  Ñ  Ð242€(1994).€€Moreover,€a€CUE€claim€must€identify€the€alleged€error(s)€with€"some€degree€ofÏspecificity".€€òòCrippenóó,€9Vet.App.€at€420;€òòFugoóó,€6Vet.App.€at€44€("to€raise€CUE€there€must€be€someÐ ;‹  Ðdegree€of€specificity€as€to€what€the€alleged€error€is€and€...€persuasive€reasons€must€be€given€as€toÏwhy€the€result€would€have€been€òòmanifestlyóó€different").€€On€appeal€of€a€BVA€determination€that€thereÐ õE  Ðwas€no€CUE€in€a€prior€final€RO€decision,€the€Court's€review€is€limited€to€determining€whether€theÏBoard's€conclusion€is€"arbitrary,€capricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€otherwise€not€in€accordanceÏwith€law"€(38U.S.C.€ðð7261(a)(3)(A))€and€whether€it€is€supported€by€an€adequate€statement€ofÏ"reasons€or€bases"€(38U.S.C.€ðð7104(d)(1)).òò€€See€Eddy€v.Brownóó,€9Vet.App.€52,€57€(1996);€òòDamrelóó,Ð i¹ Ð6Vet.App.€at€246;€òòRussellóó,€3Vet.App.€at€315.Ð Æ Ðà  àAs€the€basis€for€his€claim€of€CUE€in€the€April€1977€RO€decision€denying€service€connectionÏfor€arthritis,€the€appellant€asserts€that€the€RO€failed€"to€properly€apply€the€presumption€of€serviceÏconnection€under€38C.F.R.€ðð3.307(a)(3)"€to€the€facts€of€his€case.€€Br.at€4.€€That€regulation,€as€inÏeffect€in€April€1977,€had€provided€a€presumption€of€service€connection€to€a€veteran€who€developedÏa€disease€listed€in€38C.F.R.€ðð3.309(a)€(1976)€(in€which€"arthritis"€was€listed)€"to€a€degree€of€10[%]Ïor€more€within€[one]€year...€from€the€date€of€separation€from€service".€€38C.F.R.€ðð3.307(a)Ï(1976);€òòsee€alsoóó€38C.F.R.€ðð3.309(a)€(1976).€Although€in€this€case€the€Board€appears€to€haveÐ Q!¡* Ðdisallowed€the€veteran's€claim€on€the€ground€that€CUE€was€not€alleged€with€sufficient€specificityÏ(R.at€9);€òòsee€Crippen€óóand€òòFugoóó,€both€òòsupraóóñ¿ññ¾ñ\ñ¾ññ¿ññÀññÀñ,€the€Court€will€affirm€the€BVA€decision€on€differentÐ  $[. Ðgrounds.€€Ìà  àThe€veteran€asserted€in€his€May€1996€Substantive€Appeal€to€the€BVA€that€the€statement€ofÏDr.€Ford€(R.at€182),€had€provided€an€evidentiary€basis€for€a€10%€disability€rating€for€the€veteran'sÏarthritis,€based€on€the€one-year€presumption€period€set€forth€in€ðð3.307(a)€(1976).€€R.at€359„60.€€TheÏRO€in€its€May€1977€letter€explaining€the€April€1977€denial€had€explicitly€stated€that€"Dr.Ford'sÏstatement€provide[d]€no€basis€to€establish€service€connection€for€arthritis".€€€R.at€186.€€The€veteranÐ 9,‰': Ðargued€that€the€RO's€conclusion€had€been€"absolutely€not€realistic"€and€thus€constituted€CUE.€€R.atÏ359.€€The€veteran's€claim€is€thus€a€request€for€a€reweighing€of€the€evidence,€which€is€not€aÏpermissible€basis€for€a€CUE€claim,€òòRussellóó,€3Vet.App.at€313;€when€there€is€evidence€both€pro€andÐ jº Ðcon€on€the€issue€it€is€impossible€for€the€appellant€to€succeed€in€showing€that€"the€result€would€haveÏbeen€òòmanifestlyóó€different",€òòFugo,€supraóó.€€Because,€as€noted€by€the€Board,€there€was€evidence€in€theÐ $ t Ðveteran's€claims€file€in€April€1977€"to€the€effect€that€the€onset€of€arthritis€began€in€December€1971Ï[more€than€a€year€after€his€January€1970€discharge],€[including]€the€veteran's€[own]€statement€duringÏthe€August€1974€VA€examination€[(R.at€123)]...€,€indicating€the€same"€(R.at€10),€the€Court€cannotÏdisturb,€on€the€ground€that€it€was€arbitrary€or€capricious€or€otherwise€not€in€accordance€with€law,Ïthe€Board's€conclusion€that€the€April1977€RO€decision€did€not€contain€CUE.€€òòSeeóó38€U.S.C.Ð õE  Ððððð5109A,7261(a)(3)(A);€38C.F.R.€ðð3.105(a);€òòBustosóó,òò€Eddyóó,òò€Damrel,óó€andòò€Russellóó,€all€òòsupra.€€óó€ò òòòÐ R¢  ÐÓ  ÓB.€Finality€of€the€April€1977€RO€Decisionóóó óà @À àÐ ¯ÿ Ðà @ àÓa@Óà  àIn€his€November2,€1999,€supplemental€memorandum,€the€appellant€argues€that€"VA's€failureÏto€obtain€a€comprehensive€medical€evaluation€to€determine€whether€the€10%€threshold€underÏ38C.F.R.€ðð3.309(a)€[(1976)]€[sic]€had€been€met€constituted€a€breach€of€its€duty€to€assist",€and€thatÏ"[u]nder€òòHayreóó[,€òòsupraóó],€the€appellant's€1977€claim€to€entitlement€to€service[„]connected€arthritisÐ "r Ðshould€be€considered€unadjudicated€or€nonfinal."€€In€òòHayreóó,€the€Federal€Circuit€held€that€"[i]n€casesÐ Ï  Ðof€grave€procedural€error€...€RO€or€Board€decisions€are€not€final€for€purposes€of€direct€appeal".€ÏòòHayreóó,€188F.3d€at€1333.€€Specifically,€that€court€held€that€an€RO's€failure€to€obtain€the€SMRs€of€theÐ 9‰$ Ðappellant€that€he€had€specifically€requested€be€obtained€and€its€failure€to€notify€him€of€its€failure€toÏobtain€them€may€have€constituted€a€grave€procedural€error€and,€if€so,€then€the€RO€decision€at€issueÏthere€was€not€final.€€òòSee€id.óó€at€1335€("if€the€Court€of€Appeals€for€Veterans€Claims€finds€that€the€ROÐ P! * Ðbreached€the€duty€to€assist€in€1972,€then€the€1972€RO€decision€is€not€final€for€purposes€of€directÏappeal").€€Ìà  àIn€so€holding,€the€Federal€Circuit€seemed€to€place€substantial€weight€on€three€factors,€noneÏof€which€is€present€here.€€First,€the€Federal€Circuit€iterated€no€less€than€eight€times€that€the€VAÏassistance€sought€was€"specifically€requested",€òòHayreóó,€188€F.3d€at€1331„34€(although€the€opinionÐ !(q#4 Ðrecognized€that€a€specific€request€for€VA€to€obtain€particular€records€may€not€be€required€in€allÏcircumstances€in€order€for€the€duty€to€assist€to€be€triggered);€òòid.óó€at€1331€("duty€to€assist€may€ariseÐ Û*+&8 Ðwhen€a€claimant€simply€refers€to€the€pertinent€private€medical€examinations€or€treatments€withoutÐ 8,ˆ': Ðmaking€a€specific€request").€€Second,€the€òòHayreóó€opinion€stressed€the€lack„of„notice€element€of€thatÐ ° Ðcase€that€may€"undermine[]€the€operation€of€the€veterans'€benefits€system€by€altering€its€manifestlyÏpro„claimant€character€and€jeopardizing€the€veteran's€ability€to€appeal€in€what€may€appear€to€be€aÏfundamentally€unfair€manner".€€òòId.óó€at€1334€(quoting€extensively€from€General€Accounting€OfficeÐ Ç Ðand€Senate€Committee€on€Veterans'€Affairs€reports,€cited€therein,€that€"illustrate[d]€that€in€theÏveterans'€uniquely€claimant€friendly€system€of€awarding€compensation,€systemic€justice€andÏfundamental€considerations€of€procedural€fairness€carry€great€significance€...,€especially€early€inÏthe€VA€adjudicatory€process").€€A€similar€concern€about€the€importance€of€the€BVA's€respondingÏto€a€claimant€in€connection€with€the€claimant's€specific€request€for€assistance€was€expressed€by€thisÏCourt€very€early€in€its€existence€when€we€held€in€òòGodwin€v.Derwinskióó€that€"[i]nherent€in€the€duty„Ð õE  Ðto„assist€obligation€and€the€òòGilbertóó[òò€v.Derwinskióó,€1Vet.App.€49,€56„57€(1990),]€explanationÐ R¢  Ðmandate€is€a€requirement€for€the€Secretary€to€respond€to€a€claimant's€request€for€VA€assistance€oneÏway€or€the€other."€€òòGodwinóó,€1Vet.App.€419,€425€(1991).€€Ð  \ Ðà  àThird,€the€Federal€Circuit€in€òòHayre€óóseems€to€have€considered€the€particularly€vital€role€thatÐ i¹ ÐSMRs€can€play€in€determining€the€question€of€in„service€incurrence€of€a€disability.€€òòId.óó€at€1334Ð Æ Ð("[n]otice€to€the€claimant€explaining€the€failure€to€obtain€pertinent€and€specifically€requested€SMRsÏis€therefore€essential€to€insuring€that€the€[RO]€...€will€adequately€develop€a€veteran's€claim€beforeÏdeciding€it€on€the€merits").€€The€opinion€also€stressed€that€"VA€has€substantively€defined€itsÏobligation€to€obtain€SMRs€in€its€VA€Adjudication€Procedure€Manual€M21„1",›€œòòid.óó›€at€œ1331;€that€"theÐ :Š$ Ðveteran's€possession€of€[SMRs]€is€a€decidedly€abnormal€situation";€and€that€"[t]he€veteran€cannotÏreasonably€be€expected€to€have€such€records",€òòid.€óóat€1332›€(internal€quotation€œomitted).€€Indeed,€VAÐ ôD( Ðhas€itself€recently€recognized€the€special€role€of€SMRs€and€VA's€access€to€them.€€òòSeeóó€VA€VeteransÐ Q!¡* ÐBenefits€Administration€Letter€20„99„60€at€1€(Aug.€30,€1999)€[hereinafter€VBA€Letter€20„99„60]Ï(directing€all€ROs€that€certain€medical€records€"will€not€be€requested€prior€to€a€determination€thatÏthe€claim€is€well€grounded"€but€also€directing€as€follows:€"Service€medical€records€and€VA€medicalÏcenter€[(VAMC)]€records€are€to€be€requested€òòò òin€all€casesó óóó.€€These€are€records€considered€to€be€in€VAÐ Å&"2 Ðcustody."€(emphasis€added)).€Ìà  àIn€this€case,€however,€the€issue€is€not€a€failure€to€give€adequate€òòò ònoticeóóó ó›€as€to€circumstancesÐ )Ñ$6 Ðregarding€òòò òmissing€œSMRsó óóó€that€the€appellant€ò òòòspecifically€requestedóóó ó€VA€to€obtain;›€rather,€the€appellantÐ à*0&8 Ðasserts€that€the€RO€œhad€had›€a€duty€œin€this€case,€on€its€own€initiative,€to›€œprovide€for›€a€VA€medicalÐ ?,': Ðexamination€in€1977€regarding€whether€he€had€manifested€symptoms€of€arthritis€to€a€degree€of€10%Ïdisabling€within€one€year€after€his€discharge€from€œthe€service›€in€œJanuary1970,›€œfor€the€purposes€ofÏdetermining€the€applicability€of€the€presumption€of€service€connection€under€38›C.F.R.€ðððð3.307(a)Ïand€3.309(a)€(1976).€€œGiven€the€Federal€Circuit's€emphasis€in€òòHayreóó€on€the€need€for€VA€to€respondÐ Ç Ðto€assistance€that€was€"specifically€requested",€on€the€fair€"notice"€aspect,€and€on€the€particularÏimportance€of€SMRs,€the€Court€concludes€thatòò€Hayreóó€does€not€require€that€a€breach€of€the€duty€to€Ð  Ñ  Ðassist€such€as€is€alleged€in€this€case€(failure€to€carry€out,€sua€sponte,€a€VA€examination)€beÏconsidered€such€a€grave€procedural€error€as€to€have€tolled€the€finality€of€the€April€1977€RO€decision.€Ïà  àWe€reach€this€conclusion€on€the€assumption,€but€do€not€decide€because€we€need€not,€that€inÏApril€1977€there€was€a€well„grounded„claim€requirement;€that€satisfying€any€such€requirement€wasÏthen€a€prerequisite€to€the€triggering€of€a€duty€to€assist;€and€that€the€RO€in€April€1977€had€beenÏpresented€with€a€well„grounded€claim,€òòsee€Hayreóó,€188F.3d€at€1331€(recognizing€that€duty€to€assistÐ ¯ÿ Ðapplies€€"[o]nce€a€claimant€has€submitted€a€well„grounded€claim").€€òòCf.€Caffreyóó,€6€Vet.App.€at€383Ð  \ Ð(holding€that€VA€breached€duty€to€assist€in€1975€adjudication€of€well„grounded€claim,€but€providingÏno€authority€in€support€of€determination€that€duty€to€assist€existed€at€that€time);€òòid.óó€at€385€(Steinberg,Ð Æ ÐJ.,€dissenting)€(noting€that€"it€would€be€reasonable€to€conclude€that€there€was€a€comparable€duty€toÏassist€since€at€least€the€1972€promulgation€of€[38C.F.R.€]ðð3.103(a)").€€We€further€assume,Ïarguendo,€that€the€duty€to€assist€in€April€1977€had€encompassed€a€duty€to€obtain€a€medicalÏexamination€specifically€regarding€the€application€of€38C.F.R.€ðððð3.307(a)€and€3.309(a).€€òòCf.€Hayreóó,Ð :Š$ Ð188F.3d€at€1335€(remanding€to€this€Court€for€determination€whether€RO€had€"breached€the€duty€toÏassist€òòò òin€1972ó óóó"€(emphasis€added)).€€In€regard€to€the€above€assumptions€made€for€the€purposes€of€theÐ ôD( Ðabove€analysis,€however,€we€note€that€the€appellant€in€this€case€has€not€shown€that€such€assumptionsÏare€correct;€that€is,€he€has€not€shown€that€an€extant€and€applicable€VA€duty€to€assist€was€violatedÏin€1977.€€We€hold€that€such€a€failing€would€otherwise€be€fatal€to€the€òòHayreóó€relief€that€he€seeks.€Ð  $]. ÐGiven€the€rather€murky€state€of€the€law€and€VA€regulations€prior€to€the€enactment€of€the€Veterans'ÏJudicial€Review€Act€(VJRA),€Pub.€L.€No.€100„687,€Div.€A,€102€Stat.€4105„4122€(1988)€(found€atÏ38€U.S.C.€ðð€7251€note),€insofar€as€the€circumstances€under€which€VA€had€a€duty€to€assist€and€whatÏthat€duty€comprised,€in€order€for€an€appellant€to€prevail€on€a€contention€that€a€pre„VJRA€claimÏremained€open€under€the€òòHayreóó€approach,€the€appellant€must€first€establish€that€a€breach€of€an€extantÐ Þ*.&8 Ðand€applicable€duty€to€assist€occurred€in€connection€with€the€adjudication€of€that€pre„VJRA€claim.Ð ;,‹': Ðà  àUnlike€the€situation€in€òòHayreóó€pertaining€to€existing€medical€records,€the€veteran€in€this€caseÐ ° Ðwas€not€in€an€"abnormal€situation"€where€VA€was€in€control€of€evidence€necessary€to€prove€hisÏclaim,€òòHayreóó,€188F.3d€at€1332;€òòsee€also€óóVBA€Letter€20„99„60òò,€supraóó€(SMRs€and€VAMC€"recordsÐ jº Ðconsidered€to€be€in€VA€custody").€€Rather,€in€this€case€the€veteran€could€readily€have€obtained€aÏmedical€examination€from€a€private€physician€and€submitted€the€results€of€such€examination€alongÏwith€the€other€private€medical€evidence€that€the€veteran€submitted€in€April€1977.€€R.at€182.€€In€fact,Ïthe€record€on€appeal€contains€several€private€medical€records€submitted€to€VA€by€the€veteran€atÏvarious€times€following€his€service.€€òòSee,€e.g.óó,€R.€at€86,€98„101,€149,€182.€€There€is€no€reason€toÐ ;‹  Ðbelieve€that€the€veteran€could€not€have€sought€from€those€private€physicians€the€medical€opinion€thatÏhe€now€alleges€should€have€been€sought,€sua€sponte,€by€VA€in€1977.€€Ìà  àNot€only€do€we€believe€that€òòHayreóó€does€not€òòò òrequireó óóó€that€a€"garden€variety"€breach€of€VA'sÐ R¢  Ðduty€to€assist,€in€the€development€of€a€claim€that€is€well€grounded,€be€construed€as€tolling€the€finalityÏof€an€underlying€RO€decision,€but€we€also€believe€that€it€would€be€unwise€for€this€Court€to€extendÐ ^ ÐòòHayreóó€to€encompass€such€a€duty„to„assist€violation.€€At€some€point,€there€is€a€need€for€finality€withinÐ k» Ðthe€VA€claims€adjudication€process;€thus,€the€tolling€of€finality€should€be€reserved€for€instances€ofÏñÉñÔ% € ÔñÉñ"grave€procedural€error"€„„€error€that€may€deprive€a€claimant€of€a€fair€opportunity€to€obtainÏentitlements€provided€for€by€law€and€regulation.€€òòHayreóó,€188F.3d€at€1333.€€For€example,€whereÐ ‚Ò  Ðdocuments€containing€certain€information€are€under€VA€control€(real€or€constructive),€failure€toÏproduce€them€is€likely€to€frustrate€an€award€of€benefits.€€òòSeeóó€VBA€Letter€20„99„60,€òòsupra.óó€Ð <Œ$ ÐConservative€application€of€the€òòHayre€óótolling-of-finality€doctrine€is€consistent€with€the€rationale€ofÐ ™é& Ðthe€Federal€Circuit,€which€was€grounded€on€Court€precedents€that€are€firmly€rooted€in€statutorilyÏestablished€fundamental€principles€of€notice€and€the€opportunity€to€be€heard.€€The€Federal€CircuitÏanalogized€to€òòTablazon€v.Brownóó,€and€the€cases€cited€therein,€which€held€that€in€the€rareÐ °", Ðcircumstance€"where€an€appellant€'never€received€notification€of€any€denial€.€.€.,€the€one„year€periodÏwithin€which€to€file€an€NOD,€which€commences€with€the€date€of€mailing€of€notice€of€the€result€ofÏinitial€review€or€determination,€did€not€begin€to€run'",€because€such€notice€is€required€by€statute€andÏis€fundamental€to€a€full€and€fair€adjudication€of€a€veteran's€claim.€€òòTablazonóó,€8Vet.App.€359,€361Ð $(t#4 Ð(1995)€(quoting€òòHauck€v.Brownóó,€6Vet.App.€518,€519€(1994)€(internal€quotation€marks€omitted)).€Ð )Ñ$6 ÐMoreover,€the€limited€jurisdiction€assigned€to€the€Court€by€Congress€also€counsels€against€a€broadÏapplication€of€the€òòHayreóó€finality€exception€to€cover€old€breaches€of€the€duty€to€assist€that€did€notÐ ;,‹': Ðseriously€impair€a€claimant's€opportunity€to€be€awarded€benefits.€€òòSeeóó€Veterans'€Judicial€Review€Act,Ð ° ÐPub.€L.€No.€100„687€ðð€402,€102€Stat.€4105,€4122€(1988)€(found€at€38€U.S.C.€ðð€7251€note)€(Court€Ð ;,‹': Ðgenerally€has€jurisdiction€to€review€a€final€BVA€decision€only€where€an€NOD€was€filed€on€or€afterÏNovember€18,€1988);€òòVelez€v.Westóó,€11Vet.App.€148,€157€(1998);€òòsee€also€Christianson€v.€ColtÐ  ] ÐIndus.€Operating€Corp.óó,€486€U.S.€800,€818€(1988);òò€Prenzler€v.€Derwinskióó,€928€F.2d€392,€393„94Ð jº Ð(Fed.€Cir.€1991);€òòSkinner€v.€Derwinskióó,€1Vet.App.€2,€3€(1990).€Ð Ç Ðà  àAccordingly,€because€we€hold€that€òòHayreóó›€does€not€and€should€not€apply€in€this€case€so€asÐ $ t Ðto€render€nonfinal€the€April€1977€RO€decision€and€because€of€the€applicability€to€the€CUE€claim€inÏthis€case€of€the€Court's€precedents€to€the€effect€that€a€VA€breach€of€the€duty€to€assist€does€notÏgenerally€constitute€a€ground€for€a€colorable€CUE€claim,€the€Board's€decision€must€be€affirmed.€€òòSeeÐ ;‹  ÐHayreóó,€188F.3d€at€1333€(affirming€that€no€CUE€claim€could€be€based€on€an€alleged€legal€error€whenÐ ˜è  Ðclaimant€"cannot€prove"€that€alleged€error€"would€manifestly€change€the€outcome€of€the"€decisionÏbeing€assailed€for€CUE€(quoting€òòBustosóó,€179€F.3dat€1381));€òòCrippen€óóand€òòFugoóó,€bothòò€supra;€see€alsoÐ R¢  ÐCaffrey€v.Brownóó,€6Vet.App.€377,€383„84€(1994)€(breach€of€duty€to€assist€generally€cannotÐ ¯ÿ Ðconstitute€basis€for€CUE€œclaim).›ÌÌà  àà@gg#ìàò òIII.€Conclusionó óˆÐ Æ Ðà  àUpon€consideration€of€the€foregoing€analysis,€the€record€on€appeal,€and€the€parties'Ïpleadings,€the€Court€holds€that€the€Board's€determination€that€the€April€1977€RO€decision€did€notÏcontain€CUE€is€not€"arbitrary,€capricious,€an€abuse€of€discretion,€or€otherwise€not€in€accordance€withÏlaw"€under€38U.S.C.€ðð7261(a)(3)(A)€and€38U.S.C.€ðð5109A€and€38C.F.R.€ðð3.105(a),€and€that€theÏappellant€has€not€demonstrated€that€the€BVA€committed€error€under€38U.S.C.€ðð7104(d)(1)€in€itsÏœarticulation›€of€reasons€or€bases,€so€as€to€warrant€reversal€or€remand.€€Therefore,€the€Court€denies€theÏSecretary's€motion€for€single„judge€affirmance€but€grants€the€remainder€of€the€Secretary's€motionÏand€affirms€the€January€1998€BVA€decision.€œñ»ñò òñ»ñThe€Court,€sua€sponte,€withdraws€its€May€12,€2000,Ð ³", Ðopinion€and€issues€this€opinionñ±ñ€is€issuedñ±ñ€in€its€place;€consequently,€the€appellant's€July€3,€2000,€motion€ñ»ñÔ% € Ôñ»ñforÏpanel€reconsideration€of€the€May€12,€2000,€opinion€is€denied€as€moot.ñ»ñó óñ»ñ›Ìà  àœAFFIRMED.ñ»ñ›ñ²ñÔ% € Ôñ²ññ»ñ›