’WPC%  
      Ö	    ·ČėUĘ½~@æģ¤G<,³ü:TÓDWÓ æ¹Hzs*¬&r.tŁ„Å!^ĄFČīī8ø~ÆĀmś%YoæXUĀįŅ/ÕĮJtĒĶ!čS@“UU]ĄY3¾ģśMZ\B3źb2uĀ§ģ“©o|­"Dśģ×ų“35Ž©»bHBxHcź °(×5¤Ći½Cķ+0r:4ŌfõŹW{’§6śźoŌ3Ł7½*ÆÖ9¾«tŠDyüž&fģVåī×.!}ė¹"Æ
*JTnćLŖeEć’ī±=DŽyū-%@#ćUü¹Üł¤ū5xŚŹÖŖD*J}ilB“6+I„ąĀr«H6ÉĄ÷}vłfģĘrsĒ|Ā¬ėķĻ,ē¦mĖ=ńģ!4Ą ÷×QvČ3[ŹC> SÉļŚĮ;HvČŅ’}aŲ¾Yg’Ļ÷AL6\¾M¢Æ¬µŁ{fŃ=6ĆļPceøĖé~ »@Ę*HŠ3hVĶĻŚy1ÓE»Zu$Rv’qtS ^y=R$6:Äį|w±Õ’ $            U   .   ų  	%      &  #     ,   U   6   7  n   X  m   	      Å  0      Ė   U   P   a  	1   m   ±     ~          
       Ø
        °   !   Š   Ą   !        !         !     °  "   Ī  Ą   !        !        !      ®   !      >   !      Ī   !      ^       ’  ī   	)      ķ"   	      #            #  w   @   	#  4      I#   U   N   ]#   	      «#            «#   U   N   ±#       ’#  < ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r           X H P   L a s e r J e t   5 P / 5 M P   ( H P )                             HPPCL5G      ,ä ,,,,,ä 0                                                                                                                                                             nLFĪ* čų  	 p`   T m s R m n       L e g a l   « < ž6X  9   ` (   C o u r i e r                                                                                                         Xōx ž6X   @É 8Å; X@) ō\	  	   `   & T m s R m n       L e g a l   P r o                                                                                   XXt ō\	    P ØPU XP  Č      (   n               $ ”   ”   Ō   X¶ X  X Xģ ŌÓ     ÓŃ7         X  X       dČ    X   X       dČ 7 ŃŃ     Ń* °ųø  	 p`  8 T i m e s   R o m a n     P r o C o l l e   L e g a l                    # e   3 7 = C I Q Y a g ­   ­   1 .   a .   i .   ( 1 )   ( a )   ( i )   1 )   a )                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       
            Ķ	   
 '           U S C V A    0    U S C V A   
 .      
       
       
       G   >7  Lh      ’B r a d l e y ’  ’B u c k l i n g e r ’  ’o s t e o p h y t e s ’  ’C 4 ’  ’C 6 ’  ’f o r a m i n a l ’  ’C o l l e t t e ’  ’3 d ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’ $ ’r e a d j u d i c a t i o n ’$  ’i n c u r r e n c e ’   3| L   ø4    ž’" B J Q \ s  « Č ’’’’Ź ’’’’’’ń³÷?’’’’’’’’’’’æ?ū’÷’’’Ļ’’Ļ’ō=Ą4    /’’’’’’N÷’’ķ’’ßR«’ł                  šåś’’ž’’’’’’’ß’’`     <   @0Å’ń||qĒ’?ųńćĒ      Ųó’’’ż’’÷ßMß        @  ą       "  u«Ü,Ł’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’^:DPddØDDDdp4D48dddddddddd88pppXø|pDL|°pp|¼|D8D\dDXdXdXDdd88d8ddddDL8ddddX`(`lńD l\  DDD   4 DDDDDD dDd  XXXXX°X|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8ddddddddddXdbdddpdXXXXXXX~|X|X|X|XddddddddD8D8D8D8pL d|8|P|8|D|8dvdddd°DDDpLpLpLpL|T|8|8dddddd¼d|X|X|X  d|8dDpL|8dd~dd|XD8 8d4                              4               dd    $/NHxxH \dDXddddĄd8@d<@d< DD XXdČDDx ddÄ   H xxH    ppČ     DX         Ø Č  <«    øČČdČxtldpÄxx                                                                                                                                                    1plll    l(  llp  pČČddČdÄÄÄÄ 4  PtDp     ,T  `d    "  u«Ü,Ł’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’^:DTddØDDDd4D48ddddddddddDDdø||||DXpØ||dp|Ø|ppL8LTdDddXdX8dd88X8ddddLL8dXXXLP8PlńD lT  DDD   4 DDDDDD dDd  |d|d|d|d|d°X|X|X|X|XD8D8D8D8dddddddddpX|ddddpXd|d|d|d|dXXXXx|X|X|X|XddddddddD8D8D8D8dX Xp8pHp8p@p8dtdddd¼|L|L|LdLdLdLdLpHp8p8ddddddØpXpLpLpL  dp8d|LdLp8pXpXxdd|XD8 8d4                              4               dd    ,/NHxxH hdLdddddÄd8@d<@d< DD ppd°DDx ddÄ   H xxH    dd°     Dp         Ø Č  <«    øČČdČxtldÄxx                                                                                                                                                    1lll    l8  ll  ČČddČdÄÄÄÄ 4  |PtD     ,T  Td    "  u«Ü,Ł’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’^:DpddČØDDDdp4D48ddddddddddDDpppd¼|Ld¼|pČD8DtdDdpXpXDdp8Dp8ØpdppXLDpdddXP,PhńD ht  DDD   4 DDDDDD dDp  dddddČXXXXXJ8J8J8J8pddddppppddpddddzpdddXXXXXXXXddddddppL8L8L8L8¢pd p8Z8P8pppddĘXXXpLpLpLpLfDDppppppČdXXX  p8pXpLDdddpXL8 8d4                              4               dd    6/NHxxH jdDdddddĄd<Dd<Dd< DD dddČDDx ddČ   H xxH    ppČ     Dd         Ø Č  <«    øČČdČxvldpÄxx                                                                                                                                                    1plll    l,  hlp  pČČddČdÄÄÄÄ 4  PtDp     6p  Ld  |  ? x x x , ,   Xx įPž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’Tż  7 R C R , , / XR ’„ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ö ’’’’’’q’’’’ģ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’µ  5 R C R , , n XR u"ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’ś  7 W C W , , ¹ XW Į5ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’Tp t , B 5 B , , / ąB ’„ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’{ ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’Ōū  : T C T , ,  XT »Wž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ā’’’’’’]’’’’Ų’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’Sž’ž’ž’ž’ž’  : P C P , , 7 XP Hqž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’¶  : T C T , , p XT s×ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’’’ü s 4 D 8 D , , „ōD xgž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’g’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’¾  : T C T , , Ņ XT »Wž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’’’ž’’’’’’’ž’’’’’ž’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’ž’  "  u«Ü,Ł’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’^.6@PP}666PZ*6*-PPPPPPPPPP--ZZZFsjjscZss6=scssZsjZcssssc6-6JP6FPFPF6PP--P-}PPPP6=-PPsPPFM MVń6 VJ  666   * 666666 P6P  sFsFsFsFsFhjFcFcFcFcF6-6-6-6-sPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsFsPsNsPsPsPZPsFsFsFjFjFjFjFsecFcFcFcFsPsPsPsPsPsPsPsP6-6-6-6-pZ= sPc-c@c-c6c-sPs^sPsPsPsPsj6j6j6Z=Z=Z=Z=cCc-c-sPsPsPsPsPsPssPcFcFcF  sPc-sPj6Z=c-sPsPsesPsPcF6- -sP4                              *               PP    /ppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppppN:``: JP6FPPPPP-3zzP03zzPz0 66 FFP 77` PP   : ``:    ZZ      6F             0«    zz  Pz `]VPZ``                                                                                                                                                    jjjj1ZVVV   V   VVZ s ssZ  PP P *  r@]6Z     #C  MP s   " ’’~ Æ ² ’’Ż ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’Z4@ d¼¤ LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88 Ø dÄ |¤¤HX¼ x l¤Ä@ @ d dlXld@`l84h8¤llllLL@l\XXX/                                               d Ģ)     dd            d  ll               d ¤.                                    @        @@     " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4<Dd¼0LLdØ0D0ddddddddddd88ØØØ\Ä| LL°xl|°|TdTdd0hhXhX<Tl48d4¤lhhd@H8lXTPPdddØĢ x   l |    " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4@@d4LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88ØØØ`ÄxPd¼|t|øTdTdd4hlXpX@`p<@l<¤pdplTTDp\`XXdddØĢ |   t |    " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_,44P(@@P(8(TPPPPPPPPPP,,P |pttd<Hxh|d|Xl| ||t4T4PP(PXHXP4PX,,T,XXXX@@4XHpHHHTPTØ d  | X l    " ’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’’_4@@d¼¤0LLdØ0@0ddddddddddd88ØØØdÄ |¤¤HX¼ x l¤Ä@d@dd0dlXld@`l84h8¤llllLL@l\XXXdddØĢ x    l  ¤ < Ō6X  9  ` +   C o u r i e r         H) ī\	  	 p`   & T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n          ) ī*f9	 p`  2 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   I t a l i c       ’, ō4	  	 p   . T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   B o l d       * čų  	 p`   T m s R m n       L e g a l   9( čųć	 p`   T m s R m n   I t a l i c       ’* °ųH  	 p   T m s R m n   B o l d        )  Š   	 p`   T m s R m n         i* čų  	 p`   T m s R m n         Ė
             H  
   Æ D °  ± E ²  ³ E “ Ź µ E ¶  · D ø Ź vo'    Ō ō»   ī3  ( ČhH  	   Z  6 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   R e g u l a r           Č  ( uH  	   Z  6 T i m e s   N e w   R o m a n   R e g u l a r             ’B r a d l e y ’  ’B u c k l i n g e r ’  ’o s t e o p h y t e s ’  ’C 4 ’  ’C 6 ’  ’f o r a m i n a l ’  ’C o l l e t t e ’  ’3 d ’  ’D e r w i n s k i ’ $ ’r e a d j u d i c a t i o n ’$  ’i n c u r r e n c e ’   Ż
   ! ŻŌ   Xć X  X X   ŌÓ     ÓŃ7         X  X       dš                  dČ 7 ŃŃ     ŃŻ    ŻŃ    f ŃŌ "  XÅ& X X Xć ŌŌ   Xć X X" XÅ& Ōą@    ŽŽ* ģ ąņņŌ# "  XÅ& X X Xćµ   # ŌŌ   XÅ& X X" XÅ& ŌUNITEDSTATESCOURTOFAPPEALSFORVETERANSCLAIMSóóŠ   	 °      ŠĢĢą@    ģģ> ģ ąņņNoóó.961373Š   	 Š   ŠĢą@    šš6 ģ ąņņHaroldStuckey,Appellantóó,Š   	 `	°   ŠĢą@    B ģ ąņņv.óóŠ   	 @   ŠĢą@    ÖÖ: ģ ąņņTogoD.West,Jr.,óóŠ   	  p	   Šą@    / ģ ąņņSecretaryofVeteransAffairs,Appellee.óóŠ   	 `	
   ŠĢĢą@    ee- ģ ąOnAppealfromtheBoardofVeterans'AppealsĢĢĢ(ArguedJuly29,1999ą     ąń ·ńą    h ąń·ńńøńŌ%     Ōńøńą    h ąą    Ą ąą     ąą    p ąDecidedń µńńµńń¶ńNovember17,1999ń¶ń)Š   	 °    ŠĢĢą     ąņņBarbaraJ.Cookóófortheappellant.Š   	 Š   ŠĢą     ąņņGaryE.O'Connor,óówithwhomņņLeighA.Bradleyóó,GeneralCounsel;ņņRonGarvinóó,AssistantŠ   	 `°   ŠGeneralCounsel;andņņJoanE.Moriartyóó,DeputyAssistantGeneralCounsel,wereonthebrief,forŠ   	 P    Štheappellee.ĢĢą     ąņņMichaelP.HoranóówasonthebrieffortheParalyzedVeteransofAmericaasamicuscuriae.Š   	  p   ŠĢą     ąņņKennethM.CarpenteróówasonthebrieffortheNationalOrganizationofVeterans'AdvocatesŠ   	  P   Šasamicuscuriae.ĢĢą     ąņņMichaelE.TankersleyóówasonthebrieffortheNationalGulfWarResourcesCenter,Inc.,Š   	 Š     Šasamicuscuriae.ĢĢą     ąņņRickSurrattóówasonthebrieffortheDisabledAmericanVeteransandtheVeteransofŠ   	  #š!   ŠForeignWarsasamicuscuriae.ĢĢą     ąņņBartonF.StichmanóówasonthebrieffortheAmericanLegionandtheNationalVeteransŠ   	 p&Ą!$   ŠLegalServicesProgramasamicicuriae.ĢĢą     ąBeforeFARLEY,HOLDAWAY,andIVERS,ņņJudgesóó.Š   	 @)$'   ŠĢÓ         Óą     ąHOLDAWAY,ņņJudgeóó:Theappellant,HaroldStuckey,appealsaJune1996decisionoftheŠ   	  +p&)   ŠBoardofVeterans'Appeals(BVAorBoard)whichdeniedserviceconnectionforabackdisabilityĻandforresidualsofaforeheadinjury.Onappeal,theappellanthascontestedonlytheBoard'sdenialŠ    š-@)-   Šofhisclaimforserviceconnectionforabackdisability.Consequently,hisclaimforresidualsofaĻforeheadinjurywillbeconsideredabandoned.ņņBucklingerv.Brownóó,5Vet.App.435(1993).ThereŠ   	 h   ŠarenoissuesbeforetheCourtastothemeritsoftheappellant'sclaim.Infact,theappellanthasĻconcededthathisclaimisnotwellgrounded.TheissuesbeforetheCourtconcernwhetherornotĻtheappellantmayraiseissuesofprocedureforthefirsttimebeforethisCourtwhichwerenotraisedĻbeforetheBoardand,hence,werenotpartofthedecisionbelow.Forthefollowingreasons,theĻCourtwillaffirmthedecisionoftheBVA.ĢĢą@    22? ģ ąņņI.FACTSóóŠ   	 š@   Šą     ąTheappellanthadactiveserviceintheU.S.NavyfromMay1946toMarch1948.HisĻinductionexaminationfoundnophysicaldefects.HisservicemedicalrecordsdonotreflectthatheĻreceivedtreatmentforanyconditionrelevanttothisappeal.InMarch1948,aphysicalexaminationĻfoundtheappellantphysicallyqualifiedfortransfer,andnodefectswerenoted.Fourdayslater,theĻappellantwasexaminedagainandfoundphysicallyqualifiedfordischargeandhisspineandĻextremitieswerefoundtobenormal.Ģą     ąInJune1992,theappellantclaimedservice-connecteddisabilitybenefitsforabackinjuryĻandalacerationtohisforehead.InSeptember1992,aVAregionaloffice(VARO)wrotetheĻappellantaletterstating:ĢŅ  ° ŅŅ   ° ŅÓ        ÓÓ
         ÓWeareworkingonyourclaim.However,weneedmoreinformationbeforewecanĻfinishouraction.ĢPleasesendusevidenceshowingthatyourclaimeddisabilitieshavebeentreatedĻsinceyourdischargefromservice.ĢThebesttypesofevidencetogiveusarestatementsfromdoctorswhohavetreatedĻyousinceyourdischarge.ThestatementsshouldshowdatesofexaminationorĻtreatment,findings,anddiagnoses.ĢÓ          ÓÓ        ÓPleasesendusthisevidenceassoonaspossible,preferablywithin60days.ĢĢÓ       Ü   ÓÓ
         ÓŅ   °ų   ŅŅ  °ź   ŅLaterthatmonth,theappellantrespondedinalettertohisveteransserviceorganization,theDisabledĻAmericanVeterans(DAV).Throughouttheadministrativeprocess,theappellantwasactivelyĻrepresentedbytheDAVthroughanaccreditedservicerepresentative.ņņSeegenerallyóó38U.S.C.Š   	 0*%6   Ššš5902.DAVthenapparentlyforwardedthelettertotheVARO.ThisletterstatedthathewasonŠ   	 +č&8   ŠtheU.S.S.ņņMissourióóinthefallof1946whentheshipwashitbyaroundfiredfromanothershipŠ   	 °      Šduringtraining.Hesaidhe"wasknock[ed]outofmybunkabouttenfeethight[sic]fromthesteelĻfloorandhitonmyback,Iwastreatedinsickbayandreturnedtoduty."ņņId.óóHeaddedthat"mydiskŠ   	 Š   Šwasinjuredquiteawhile[sic]agoasitshowsratheradvanced[illegible]anddegenerativearthritis,ĻLS[lumbosacral]spine."ņņId.óóŠ   	 P
    Šą     ąInOctober1992,theROdeniedtheappellant'sclaimsandexplained:ĢÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓServicemedicalrecordsshownocomplaint,treatmentordiagnosisofabackinjuryĻorlacerationtotherightforehead.DischargeexaminationfromserviceisnegativeĻforanysuchclaimedcondition.Theveteran'sstatementisnoted.NoadditionalĻevidencehasbeenpresented.TheveteranhasnotpresentedanymedicalevidenceĻdemonstratingtheclaimedconditionsfromthetimeofservicetothepresent.ĢÓ    X¼   ÓÓ    X®   ÓÓ          ÓÓ
       Ź   ÓTheaccompanyingcoverletterfurtherindicatedthatthe"evidencedoesnotestablishserviceĻconnection"fortheclaimeddisabilities,andaddedthat"YOURSERVICEMEDICALRECORDSĻWEREREVIEWED.EVIDENCEDOESNOTSHOWABACKINJURYANDLACERATIONĻOFTHERIGHTFOREHEAD."InDecember1992,theVAROreceivedachangeofaddressĻannouncementfromDr.WallaceE.Johnson,anorthopedicsurgeon,withthehandwrittennote:"Mr.ĻStuckey'sDoctor."Ģą     ąInFebruary1993,theappellantfiledatimelyNoticeofDisagreement(NOD)toinitiatehisĻappealtotheBoard.InhisNOD,theappellantstated:ĢÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓPleaseacceptthisasanoticeofdisagreementinregardtotheratingdecisionofĻ10-2292denyingmeserviceconnectionforabackconditionandresidualsoftraumaĻtothehead.ĢWhenmyclaim[s]folderwasreviewedbymyrepresentative,itwasnotedthattheĻrecordsofmyvisitstosickbayfortheseconditionsarenotincludedinmyserviceĻmedicalrecords.Toassistmeinmyclaim,IamrequestingthatyourofficedowhatĻisnecessarytoobtaintheserecordseitherfromtheserviceor[fromtheNationalĻPersonnelRecordsCenter].ĢÓ    XW   ÓÓ    XI   ÓÓ       7   ÓÓ
       e   Óą     ąAfterreceivingtheappellant'sNOD,theVAROsenttheappellantandhisrepresentativeaĻStatementoftheCase(SOC).TheSOCinstructed:"ThisisnotadecisionontheappealyouhaveĻinitiated.Itisa'StatementoftheCase'whichthelawrequiresustofurnishtohelpyouinĻcompletingyourappeal.Pleasereadtheforwardinglettercarefully,aswellastheinstructionsonĻtheenclosedappealform."TheSOCthencharacterizedtheissueonappealas"ServiceconnectionŠ   	 +č&4   Šforbackinjuryandlacerationrightforehead."TheSOCthenprovidedtheappellantandhisĻaccreditedrepresentativewithsomebasictenetsofveteranslawregardingthisissuesuchas:ĢÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
         ÓServiceconnectionmaybegrantedfordisabilityresultingfromdiseaseorinjuryĻincurredoraggravatedbyservice.(38U.S.C.šš310)Ģ....ĢServiceconnectionmaybegrantedforanydiseasediagnosedafterdischargewhenĻalltheevidence,includingthatpertinenttoservice,establishedthatthediseasewasĻincurredinservice.(38C.F.R.šš3.303(d))Ģ....ĢToestablishserviceconnectionforacondition,symptomsduringservice,orwithinĻareasonabletimethereafter,mustbeidentifiableasmanifestationsofachronicĻdiseaseorpermanenteffectsofaninjury.Further,apresentdisabilitymustexistandĻitmustbeshownthatthepresentdisabilityisthesamediseaseorinjury,oristheĻresultofdiseaseorinjuryincurredinormadeworsebytheveteran'smilitaryservice.Ļ(38C.F.R.šš3.303)ĢÓ    XĀ    ÓÓ    X“    ÓÓ       ¢    ÓÓ
         ÓFinally,theSOCprovidedthereasonsbehindtheVARO'sdecision,"Servicemedicalrecords,andĻtherecorditselfareentirelyabsentofevidenceofclaimedbackinjuryorlacerationoftherightĻforehead.Thereisnoevidenceofrecordtodemonstratetheclaimedconditionsinservice."Ģą     ąInhissubstantiveappeal,filedinMarch1993,theappellantstatedthatamedictoldhimĻduringservicethatifhisbackinjurywasbadhewouldbetransferredtoafacilityonland,buttheĻappellant"didnotwanttoleavetheUSSņņMissourióóin1946[,]thebestshipinthefleet."SincehedidŠ   	 `    Šnotwanttoleavehisship,theappellantstatedthatthemedicadvisedhimtoparticipateincertainĻrehabilitativeexercises,suchasswimming.AttheendofhisSubstantiveAppeal,theappellantĻwrote:ĢŅ  ° ŅŅ   ° ŅÓ        ÓÓ
        ÓDiskwasinjuredquiteawhileagoitshowadvanceddeteriorationatpresentpatientĻisdisabled,thisisapermanenttypeofdisability,prognosisremainsguarded[.][Sic]ĢÓ
       ć'   ÓWallaceE.JohnsonMDą    h ąą    Ą ąDr.MooreŠ   	 %X +   ŠOrthopedicSurgeoną     ąą    h ąą    Ą ąHenryFordHospitalŠ   	 ų%H!,   Š[address]Ģ[telephonenumber]ĢÓ       Ń'   ÓÓ        ÓĢÓ       )   ÓŅ   °Ć'   ŅŅ  °µ'   Ņń §ńņņóóń§ńInMay1993,theappellantappearedatapersonalhearingwithhisrepresentative.HetestifiedthatĻhehadbeenknockedfromthetopbunkwhenashellhithisshipduringtrainingexercises.HestatedĻthathehadfallenatleastsixfeetandhadseenstarsafterlandingonhisback.HerecalledthatheŠ   	 ,`'4   Šhadnotfeltpainuntilaboutaweeklaterwhenitfelt"likesomethingwaspulled,andIwaskindofĻwalkingone-sided,withalimp."Hesaidthathehadsoughtmedicaltreatment,butthathehadbeenĻtoldń ¬ńifthatń¬ńń­ńń­ńń®ńń®ńń­ńthatifń­ńhewantedmilitarytreatmentforhisbackhewouldbesentashore.BecausehehadnotĻwantedtobetransferredfromtheU.S.S.ņņMissourióó,hehadgonetociviliandoctorsduringleaveinŠ   	 č8   ŠNewYork,hadtaken"Doehn's[sic]pills"andaspirin,hadwornacorset,andhadtreatedhimselfĻwithhotandcoldpacks.WhenaskedifhehadtriedtoobtainanyofthemedicalrecordsfromNewĻYork,heresponded:"No.Thatwasalmostanimpossibility."Sincemilitaryservice,theappellantĻrelatedthathefirstworkedasabarberandthenasabusoperator.HestatedthathehadtoquithisĻjobasabarberbecausehecouldnotstandforlongperiodsoftime.TheappellantexpressedthatĻafterhismilitaryservice,hedidnotseektreatmentforhisbackconditionbecausehewasconcernedĻthathemightnotbeabletoobtainajobifhisemployersknewthathehadabackcondition.ĻThereforehesaidhewasfirstdiagnosedbyhisphysician,Dr.Johnson,forhisbackconditionafterĻhehadretiredin1982,some34yearsafterhisdischarge.TheappellantrecountedthatDr.JohnsonĻhadtoldhimthathehadnodiscsbecausetheyhadcompletelydisintegrated.HealsoreferredtoĻtreatmentforhisbackproblemsattheHenryFordHospital,andsaidthatafterninedoctorshadĻ"lookedatthatbackwhenIwasapplyingforSocialSecurity"theyhadagreedthathisdiscswereĻgone.Ģą     ąInJune1993,thehearingofficerdeniedtheappellant'sclaimexplainingthat"atthistimetheĻveteranpresentednoevidencetoshowthateitherconditionpresentlyexistedorthatithas[sic]Ļcontinuouslyexistedsinceitsallegedonsetduringservice."TheofficerfoundthattheevidenceofĻrecordconsistedsolelyoftheappellant'suncorroboratedstatementswhich,"intheabsenceofanyĻothersupportingmedicalevidence(eitherfromtheservicemedicalrecordsorfollowingthereafter)Ļfailstoprovideareasonablebasistoconcludethatthealleged(currentlynotshown)conditionswereĻtheresultoftheveteran'sservice".Furthermore,thehearingofficernotedthattheappellanthadnotĻidentified"anyrelevantevidencewhichwouldtendtosupport[his]claim."Ģą     ąShortlythereafter,theVAROissuedaSupplementalStatementoftheCase(SSOC)whichĻstatedthat"thereisnoevidencetoshowthateitherconditionpresentlyexistedorthatitwasĻcontinuouslyexistentsinceservicetothepresent,"and"intheabsenceofanysupportingmedicalĻevidence,"theappellant'sstatementsandtestimonywereinsufficienttoprovideareasonablebasisŠ   	 ,`'8   Šforserviceconnection.WiththeexceptionofanexcerptfromapublishedhistoryoftheU.S.S.ĻņņMissourióó,whichtheappellantappendedtohisbriefonappeal,noadditionalevidencewasprovidedŠ   	 h   Šbytheappellantorhisrepresentative.Ģą     ąInJune1996,theBoardfoundthattheappellanthadfailedtosubmitawellgroundedclaim.ĻTheBoardfoundthattherecorddidnotcontaincompetentmedicalevidencethattheappellanthadĻsufferedanin-servicebackorforeheadinjury,andthattherewasnocompetentmedicalevidenceĻofanexusbetweentheappellant'scurrentdisabilitiesandservice.Ģą     ąInOctober1996,theappellantfiledatimelyNoticeofAppeal.Inhisbrief,theappellantĻraisedseveralproceduralerrorsintheadjudicationprocesswhichhehadnotraisedbeforetheBoard.ĻInOctober1998,thisCourtorderedthepartiestofilesupplementalbriefing.Specifically,theCourtĻorderedthepartiestoaddressthefollowingissues:ĢŌ   XCä X X Xå ŌÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓÓ        Ó(1)MaytheCourtconsiderissues,arguments,orchallengesnotraisedbeforetheŠ   	 (x   ŠBoard?Mayanappellantwhohadnotraisedanissue,argument,orchallengeĻbeforetheBoard,raisethatissue,argument,orchallengeinamotionforĻreconsiderationwiththeChairmanoftheBoard?WouldthisCourthaveĻjurisdictiontohearanissue,argument,orchallengepresentedtotheChairmaninĻamotionforreconsiderationbutnotpreviouslypresentedtotheBoard.SeeĻņņCollaroóó[ņņv.Westóó,136F.3d1304(Fed.Cir.1998)]andņņLedfordóó[ņņv.Westóó,136Š   	 Č   ŠF.3d776(Fed.Cir.1998)].Ģ(2)AssumingtheCourtfindstheissueproperlybeforetheCourt,aretheĻprovisionsoftheM211regardingassistancetoclaimantsinprocessingclaimsĻprocedural,interpretative,orsubstantive[?]Iftheprovisionsaresubstantive,whatĻrightsdotheyconfertoclaimants?Havetheserightsbeenviolatedinthiscase?ĻWhatdiscretionisvestedintheadjudicatorinimplementingtheseprovisions?ĢŌ#   Xå X X XCäČ:  # ŌÓ
       ;   ÓÓ    Xõ:   ÓÓ    Xē:   ÓÓ       ;   ÓTheCourtalsoinvitedanyinterestedamicicuriaetosubmitmemorandaontheseissues.InŠ   	 J!%   ŠDecember1998,theCourtgrantedtheappellant'smotiontostayproceedingspendinghismotionĻforreconsiderationwiththeChairmanoftheBoardofVeterans'AppealspursuanttoņņCerulloŠ   	 $j)   Šv.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.195(1991).InJanuary1999,theSecretaryadvisedtheCourtthattheŠ   	 %Ņ +   ŠChairmanhaddeniedtheappellant'smotionforreconsideration.Subsequently,bothpartiesandĻseveralamicicuriaefiledmemorandaaddressingtheissuesoutlinedbytheCourt'sorder.ĢņņÓ   ÓĢńØńŠ	   	 "+r&3   ŠńØńII.ANALYSISóóŠ   	 °      ŠÓ  B   Óą     ąOnappealtothisCourt,theappellantraisesforthefirsttimeseveralproceduralerrorsintheĻadministrativehandlingofhisclaim.Inessence,theseallegederrorscanbeboileddowntoafailureĻonthepartofVAtoadvisehimthathemustprovidetherequiredmedicalevidenceinordertowell¼groundhisclaim,thatis,toconnecthispresentdisabilitywiththeputativeincidentaboardtheU.S.S.ņņŠ   	 P
    ŠMissourióó.ņņSeegenerallyóó,ņņCaluzav.Brownóó,7Vet.App.498(1995)(requiringcompetentmedicalŠ   	 ø
   Ševidenceofacurrentdisabilityandarelationshipbetweenthatdisabilityandmilitaryservice).TheĻappellantdidnotraisetheseerrorsbeforetheBoard.BeforetheCourtmayconsidertheallegedĻproceduralerrors,theCourtmustfirstdecidewhetherornotthefailuretoraisetheseproceduralĻerrorsbeforetheBoardprecludeshimfromraisingthemforthefirsttimeonappeal.Ģą     ąTheroleofthisCourtistocorrecterrorsoftheBoard.ThisCourtcannotsubsumetheĻBoard'sroleasfactfindingadjudicators.WecannotdirectlyreviewVAROdecisionsbutreachthemĻonlytotheextenttheVAROdecisionisproperlypartoftheclaimant'sappealtotheBoard.IssuesĻwhichwereraisedafteraBoarddecisionarenot,andcannot,bepartofthatdecision.Ģą     ąOnceaVAROhasrenderedadecisionregardingaclaim,thefirststeptowardssecuringthisĻCourt'sjurisdictionoverthatclaimbeginswiththefilingofatimelyNOD.ņņSee,e.g.,FendersonŠ   	 Č   Šv.Westóó,12Vet.App.119,128(1999).AnNODisdefinedasmerely:Š   	 0    ŠÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓAwrittencommunicationfromaclaimantorhisorherrepresentativeexpressingĻdissatisfactionwithanadjudicativedeterminationbytheagencyoforiginalĻjurisdictionandadesiretocontesttheresult....WhilespecialwordingisnotĻrequired,theNoticeofDisagreementmustbeintermswhichcanbereasonablyĻconstruedasdisagreementwiththatdeterminationandadesireforappellatereview.ĻIftheagencyoforiginaljurisdictiongavenoticethatadjudicativedeterminationsĻweremadeonseveralissuesatthesametime,thespecificdeterminationswithwhichĻtheclaimantdisagreesmustbeidentified.Forexample,ifserviceconnectionwasĻdeniedfortwodisabilitiesandtheclaimantwishestoappealthedenialofserviceĻconnectionwithrespecttoonlyoneofthedisabilities,theNoticeofDisagreementĻmustmakethatclear.ĢÓ
       0I   ÓÓ    X"I   ÓÓ    XI   ÓÓ       I   Ó38C.F.R.šš20.201(1998).ThisCourthasconsistentlyinterpretedthisdefinitionofanNODĻbroadly.ņņSeegenerally,Beyrlev.Brownóó,9Vet.App.24,2728(1996).Š   	 Č($0   Šą     ąOnceaclaimanthasfiledanNOD,theresponsibilityshiftstotheVAROtoissueanSOC.Ļ38U.S.C.šš7105(d)(1).TheSOCmustcontain:Š   	 +č&4   ŠÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓÓ        Ó(A)AsummaryoftheevidenceinthecasepertinenttotheissueorissueswithwhichĻdisagreementhasbeenexpressed.Ģ(B)AcitationtopertinentlawsandregulationsandadiscussionofhowsuchlawsĻandregulationsaffecttheagency'sdecision.Ģ(C)Thedecisiononeachissueandasummaryofthereasonsforsuchdecision.ĢÓ
       mN   ÓÓ    X_N   ÓÓ    XQN   ÓÓ       N   ÓņņId.óóThepurposeoftheSOCistoframetheissuesonappealandassisttheclaimantinpreparingŠ   	 Č
   ŠargumentstotheBoard.ņņSeeóó38C.F.R.19.29.Š   	 0
   Šą     ąWhentheVAROissuesanSOC,theclaimantmustthenfileaSubstantiveAppeal.Ļ38U.S.C.šš7105(d)(3).IntheSubstantiveAppeal,theclaimant"shouldsetoutspecificallegationsĻoferroroffactorlaw,suchallegationsrelatedtospecificitemsinthestatementofthecase.TheĻbenefitssoughtonappealmustbeclearlyidentified."ņņId.óóInaddition,theSecretaryhaspromulgatedŠ   	 Š    ŠaregulationwhichfurtherdefineswhattheclaimantisrequiredtoputintheSubstantiveAppeal.Š   	 8   Šņņ"óóTotheextentfeasible,theargumentshouldberelatedtospecificitemsintheStatementoftheCaseŠ   	  š   ŠandanypriorSupplementalStatementsoftheCase.TheBoardwillconstruesuchargumentsinaĻliberalmannerforpurposesofdeterminingwhethertheyraiseissuesonappeal...."38C.F.R.Ļšš20.202.TheCourtnotesthatneitherthisCourtnortheUnitedStatesCourtofAppealsfortheĻFederalCircuit(FederalCircuit)hasdiscussedthissectionregardingwhetherornotaclaimantĻfulfilledthedutytomake"specificallegationsoferroroffactorlaw."ņņSeegenerally,Collaro,supraóóŠ   	 Øų    Š(infindingthattheCourthadjurisdictiontoconsiderissueswhichtheappellantdidnotraisetotheĻBoardinhisSubstantiveAppeal,theFederalCircuitfailedtodiscusstheapplicationoftheseĻprovisions);ņņLedfordóó,136F.3dat780n.6(citingregulationwithoutdiscussion).However,inŠ   	 ą0&   ŠņņCollaroóó,theFederalCircuit'sfindingthatthisCourthadjurisdictiontoconsiderargumentswhichŠ   	 H!(   ŠtheappellantdidnotspecificallyraisetotheBoardinhisSubstantiveAppealstronglyimpliedthat,Ļlaterifnotsoonerduringtheadministrativeadjudication,theclaimantmust"cuttheroughstone"ĻofhisNODtorevealtheargumentsuponwhichhisappealrested.ņņSeeCollaroóó,136F.3dat130910.Š   	 %Š .   ŠTodate,thisCourthasnotenforcedthetermsof38U.S.C.šš7105(d)(3)requiringaclaimanttoĻpresent"specificallegationsoferroroffactandlaw"totheBoardonappeal,althoughtheCourthasĻdismissedappealsunderthesimilardoctrineofadministrativeexhaustion.Ontheotherhand,theĻCourtnotesthattheseprovisionsusetheverb"should"whichraisesthequestionofwhetherthisŠ   	  +p&6   Šprovisionactuallyrequiresaclaimanttomake"specificallegationsoferroroffactorlaw"ormerelyĻpresentsa"moralobligation"toraisesucherrors.ņņSeeóóņņBlack'sLawDictionary,1379óó(6thed.Š   	 h   Š1990)(definingtheword"should"ascreating"usuallynomorethananobligationofproprietyorĻexpediency,oramoralobligation,therebydistinguishingitfrom'ought'").InanyeventwheretheĻclaimantdoesfileaSubstantiveAppeal,thatdocumentcanbeconsideredasindicativeofwhattheĻclaimantbelievesthefactualandlegalissuestobebeforetheBoard.Inthissense,itlimitswhattheĻBoardwilladjudicate.Ģą     ąAftertheclaimantfilestheSubstantiveAppeal,theBoardmustthenrenderadecision.ĻHowever,evenatthisstage,aclaimantcanpresenttotheBoardhisversionoftheissues,astheĻappellantdidinthiscase.IfboththeSecretaryandtheclaimanthavefulfilledtheirrespectiveĻobligations,thepointsatissueshouldbedefinedandrefinedfortheBoardtoreviewandresolve.ĻInessence,thisprocessisparalleltothepleadingsystemoftrialcourts,withVAguidingtheĻclaimantandhisrepresentativetoidentify,withsomedegreeofspecificity,thesourcesofhisĻdissatisfactionwiththeVAROdecision.TheCourtnotesthatitistheresponsibilityofbothVAinĻtheSOCandtheclaimantinthesubstantiveappealtoidentifyissuesoffactandlaw.InrenderingĻitsdecision,theBoardisthenrequiredtoprovide"awrittenstatementoftheitsfindingsandĻconclusions,andthereasonsorbasesforthosefindingsandconclusions,onallmaterialissuesofĻfactandlawpresentedontherecord."38U.S.C.šš7104(d)(1).Ģą     ąIftheBoardrendersanadversedecision,theappellantmayeitherfileamotionforĻreconsiderationwiththeChairmanoftheBoardorfileaNoticeofAppealtothisCourt.Ģą     ąThisCourt'sjurisdictionisgovernedby38U.S.C.šš7252.Thissectionprovides:ĢÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        Ó(a)TheCourtofAppealsforVeteransClaimsshallhaveexclusivejurisdictiontoĻreviewdecisionsoftheBoardofVeterans'Appeals.TheSecretarymaynotseekĻreviewofanysuchdecision.TheCourtshallhavethepowertoaffirm,modify,orĻreverseadecisionoftheBoardortoremandthematter,asappropriate.Ģ(b)ReviewintheCourtshallbeontherecordofproceedingsbeforetheSecretaryĻandtheBoard.Theextentofthereviewshallbelimitedinsection7261ofthistitle.ĻTheCourtmaynotreviewthescheduleofratingsfordisabilitiesadoptedunderĻsection1155ofthistitleoranyactionoftheSecretaryinadoptingorrevisingthisĻā
    
 āschedule.Š   	 0*%3   Š(c)DecisionsbytheCourtaresubjecttoareviewasprovidedinsection7292ofthisĻā
    
 ātitle.ĢÓ
       Wb   ÓÓ    XIb   ÓÓ    X;b   ÓÓ       )b   Ó38U.S.C.šš7252.TheCourt'sauthoritytoreviewń ÆńofńÆńń ±ńń°ńqań°ńń±ńń²ńań²ńBoarddecisionisfurtherdescribedbyĻ38U.S.C.šš7261.Thesectionprovides:ĢÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        Ó(a)Inanyactionbroughtunderthischapter,theCourtofAppealsforVeteransĻClaims,totheextentnecessarytoitsdecisionandwhenpresented,shall--ĢÓ    X²f   ÓÓ  °   Ó(1)decideallrelevantquestionsoflaw,interpretconstitutional,statutory,andĻregulatoryprovisions,anddeterminethemeaningorapplicabilityoftheĻtermsofanactionoftheSecretary;Ģ(2)compelactionoftheSecretaryunlawfullywithheldorunreasonablyĻdelayed;Ģ(3)holdunlawfulandsetasidedecisions,findings(otherthanthosedescribedĻinclause(4)ofthissubsection),conclusions,rules,andregulationsissuedorĻadoptedbytheSecretary,theBoardofVeterans'Appeals,ortheChairmanĻoftheBoardfoundtobe--ĢÓ    °g   ÓÓ     Ó(A)arbitrary,capricious,anabuseofdiscretion,orotherwisenotinĻaccordancewithlaw;Ģ(B)contrarytoconstitutionalright,power,privilege,orimmunity;Ģ(C)inexcessofstatutoryjurisdiction,authority,orlimitations,orinĻviolationofastatutoryright;orĢ(D)withoutobservanceofprocedurerequiredbylaw;andĢÓ    ·i   ÓÓ  °   Ó(4)inthecaseofafindingofmaterialfactmadeinreachingadecisioninaĻcasebeforetheDepartmentwithrespecttobenefitsunderlawsadministeredĻbytheSecretary,holdunlawfulandsetasidesuchfindingifthefindingisĻclearlyerroneous.ĢÓ    ° k   ÓÓ  Xc3     Ó(b)Inmakingthedeterminationsundersubsection(a)ofthissection,theCourtshallĻtakedueaccountoftheruleofprejudicialerror.Ģ(c)InnoeventshallfindingsoffactmadebytheSecretaryortheBoardofVeterans'ĻAppealsbesubjecttotrialdenovobytheCourt.Ģ(d)WhenafinaldecisionoftheBoardofVeterans'AppealsisadversetoapartyandĻthesolestatedbasisforsuchdecisionisthefailureofthepartytocomplywithanyĻapplicableregulationprescribedbytheSecretary,theCourtshallreviewonlyĻquestionsraisedastocompliancewithandthevalidityoftheregulation.Ģā
    
 āÓ
       Ąf   ÓÓ    X;l   ÓÓ    X¤f   ÓÓ       f   Ó38U.S.C.šš7261.Š   	 Ø*ų%0   Šą     ąTheplainmeaningofthesesectionsclearlylimitsthisCourt'sjurisdictiontoreviewaĻā
    
 ā"decisionoftheBoard."38U.S.C.šš7252(a).Nonetheless,fromitsinception,theCourthasĻexerciseditsjurisdictionoverissueswhichwereimplicitintheBoarddecisionbutwhichtheBoardĻdidnotspecificallydiscuss.ņņSee,e.g.,Fanningv.Brownóó,4Vet.App.225,229(1993)(holdingthatŠ   	 č8   ŠtheBoardfailedtoprovideadequatereasonsandbasesforitsdecisionbynotdiscussingtheĻapplicabilityofatotaldisabilityratingbasedonindividualunemployability);ņņKarnasv.Derwinskióó,Š   	 ø
   Š1Vet.App.308,313(1991)(holdingthattheBoardis"notfreetoignoreitsownregulations");ņņAklesŠ   	  p   Šv.Derwinskióó,1Vet.App.118,121(1991).InņņAklesóó,theCourtexplained:Š   	 Ų	   ŠÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓInthebrieftothisCourt,theSecretaryarguesthatthequestionofentitlementtoĻspecialmonthlycompensationunder38U.S.C.šš314(k)wasnotraisedbelowandĻthat"thisCourtshouldsummarilyrejectthisnewissue."Wedisagree;thisargumentĻcompletelyignoresthenonadversarialnatureoftheproceedingsbelowandtheĻconcomitaldutytoassistthatstatuteandregulationsimposeupontheSecretary.ĢThereisnorequirementinthelawthataveteranmustspecifywithprecisiontheĻstatutoryprovisionsorthecorrespondingregulationsunderwhichheisseekingĻbenefits.Section241(2)placestheburdenontheSecretaryto"distributefullĻinformationtoeligibleveterans...regardingallbenefitsandservicestowhichtheyĻmaybeentitledunderlawsadministeredbytheDepartmentofVeteransAffairs."Ļ38U.S.C.šš241(2).TheSecretary'sobligationtoensurethateachveteranisĻinformedofallbenefitstowhichheisentitledisinkeepingwiththeessenceoftheĻVAsystem,whichallowsveteranstopursuetheirclaimsinanon-adversarialsetting.ĻMoreover,asnotedabove,theSecretaryhasanadditionalstatutorydutytoassistĻclaimants"indevelopingthefactspertinenttotheclaim."38U.S.C.šš3007(a).ToĻrequirethatveteransenumeratewhichsectionstheyfoundapplicabletotheirrequestĻforbenefitswouldchangetheatmosphereinwhichclaimsareadjudicated.VeteransĻwouldberequiredtodevelopexpertiseinlawsandregulationsonveteransbenefitsĻbeforereceivinganycompensation.SuchafundamentalchangewouldhavetobeĻinstitutedbytheLegislativeBranch;itwouldbebeyondthecharteroftheĻDepartmentorthisCourttoaccomplishunilaterally.ĢÓ
       Šr   ÓÓ    XĀr   ÓÓ    X“r   ÓÓ       ¢r   ÓņņAklesóó,1Vet.App.at12021.Inexercisingitsjurisdictionoverthesearguments,theCourtprimarilyŠ   	 $ą'   Šreliedupon38U.S.C.šš7104(d)whichrequirestheBoardtoprovideadequatereasonsandbasesforĻitsdecisionbasedon"allmaterialissuesoffactandlawpresentedontherecord."Therefore,underĻthecaselawestablishedbythisCourt,theBoarderredifitfailedtoenforceanylawregardingaĻclaimforbenefits,whetherornottheappellantraisedargumentsorchallengestothatlawtotheĻBoard,i.e.,whetherthatissuewascontainedintheappellant'sNODorSubstantiveAppeal,ifitwasŠ   	 +č&1   Špresentedbytherecord.Atthesametime,theCourthasdeclinedtoexercisejurisdictionifsuchĻargumentorchallengewasnotsoraised.ņņSee,e.g.,Evansv.Westóó,12Vet.App.22(1998);ņņRichardsŠ   	 h   Šv.Brownóó,9Vet.App.255(1996).Š   	 Š   Šą     ąTheFederalCircuithasrecentlydiscussedthisCourt'sjurisdictioninthecasesofņņLedfordóóŠ   	 č8   ŠandņņCollaro,óóbothņņsupraóó.InņņLedfordóó,thisCourtfoundthatitlackedjurisdictiontoheara"CUEŠ   	 P
    Šclaim"whichwasraisedforthefirsttimeonappeal.ņņLedford,óó136F.3dat778.TheFederalCircuitŠ   	 ø
   ŠaffirmedtheCourt'sdecisionfindingthattheappellantwaseffectivelyattemptingtoappeala1981ĻVAROdecisionterminatingtheappellant'stotaldisabilityratingbasedonindividualĻunemployability(TDIU),adecisionoverwhichtheCourtdidnothavejurisdiction.TheFederalĻCircuitheldthattheCourt'sjurisdictionislimitedtothe"powertoaffirm,modify,orreverseņņaŠ   	 XØ   ŠdecisionoftheBoardóóortoremandthematterasappropriate."136F.3dat779(quoting38U.S.C.Š   	 Ą   Š7252(a)).TheFederalCircuitthenstated,"Thus,thecourt'sjurisdictionisņņpremisedonanddefinedŠ   	 (x   ŠbytheBoard'sdecisionóóconcerningthematterbeingappealed."ņņId.óó(emphasisadded).TheFederalŠ   	 ą   ŠCircuitconcludedthatsincetheappellant'sclaimforTDIUhadnotbeenbeforetheBoard,hewasĻprecludedfromraisingthatclaimtotheCourt.Furthermore,theFederalCircuitheldthatinorderĻforthisCourttoexercisejurisdiction,theappellantmusthavefiledavalidNODontheparticularĻclaimbeingappealed.CitingtoņņGranthamv.Brownóó,114F.3d1156(Fed.Cir.1997),theFederalŠ   	 0    ŠCircuitnotedthataveteran'soverallclaimforbenefitsiscomposedofoneormoreissues.ņņLedfordóó,Š   	 č"   Š136F.3dat780.ForthisCourttohavejurisdiction,theappellantmustfileanNODwhichexpressesĻdisagreementwiththeparticularclaimonappeal,althoughtheappellantneednotsupporthisĻcontentionswith"legalreasoning."ņņId.óóŠ   	 Š  (   Šą     ąTheFederalCircuit'sdecisioninņņLedfordóówasbasedinpartonthefactthattheappellanthadŠ   	 8"*   Šfailedtoexhausthisadministrativeremedies.InņņLedfordóó,theFederalCircuitstated:Š   	  #š,   ŠÓ        ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ  X   ÓÓ
        ÓTheSupremeCourthasstatedthat"[t]hebasicpurposeoftheexhaustiondoctrineisĻtoallowanadministrativeagencytoperformfunctionswithinitsspecialĻcompetence--tomakeafactualrecord,toapplyitsexpertise,andtocorrectitsownĻerrorssoastomootjudicialcontroversies."ņņParisiv.Davidsonóó,405U.S.34,37,92Š   	 Ų'(#1   ŠS.Ct.815,818,31L.Ed.2d17(1972).Theapplicationofthedoctrineis"intenselyĻpractical"andistobeappliedwhenfurtheragencyconsiderationconcerninganissueĻwouldfurtherthedoctrine'sunderlyingpolicies.ņņBowenv.CityofNewYorkóó,476Š   	 Ø*ų%4   ŠU.S.467,485,106S.Ct.2022,2032(1986).Š   	 +č&5   ŠÓ
          ÓÓ    Xt   ÓÓ    Xf   ÓÓ       T   ÓņņId.óóat780.Thus,unlessanappellanthasexhaustedhisadministrativeremedies,heisgenerallyŠ   	 °      ŠprohibitedfromraisingissuesanewinthisCourt.Mostimportantly,theFederalCircuitheldthatĻthedoctrineofexhaustionofadministrativeremediesisnotjurisdictional,butdiscretionary.ņņId.óóŠ   	 Š   Š(citingņņAlliedóóņņGeneralNuclearServ.v.UnitedStatesóó,839F.2d1572,1575(Fed.Cir.1988)).TheŠ   	 č8   ŠFederalCircuitconcludedthattheappellantinņņLedfordóóhadfailedtoraisehisallegedconstitutionalŠ   	 P
    ŠandAdministrativeProcedureAct(APA)violationstotheagency,therebyfailingtoexhausthisĻadministrativeremedies,andthustheCourtproperlydeclinedtohearargumentsrelatingtothoseĻviolations.ņņId.óóat782.Inotherwords,iftheappellantfailstoraiseanargumentorchallengetotheŠ   	 Ų	   ŠBoard,theCourtmaydeclinetohearthatargumentorchallengeonappeal.Ģą     ąOneweekaftertheFederalCircuitissuedņņLedfordóó,thatCourtrendereditsdecisioninņņCollaroóóŠ   	 XØ   ŠwhichappearsinconsistentinmanyrespectstothatCourt'sanalysisinņņLedfordóó.LiketheappellantŠ   	 Ą   ŠinņņLedfordóó,theappellantinņņCollaroóóalsoarguedthathisrightsundertheAPAandtheConstitutionŠ   	 (x   Šhadbeenviolated.ThisCourthadheldthatitdidnotpossessjurisdictiontoheartheappellant'sĻargumentsbecausetheywerenotraisedtotheBoard.UnlikethedecisioninņņLedfordóó,however,theŠ   	 ųH   ŠFederalCircuitinņņCollaroóófoundthatthisCourthadjurisdictiontohearthosechallengestotheŠ   	 `°   ŠBoard'sdecision.InņņCollaroóó,theFederalCircuitechoedthisCourt'sanalysisinņņAklesóóbynotingthatŠ   	 Č   Šattheadministrativelevel,veteransoftendonotpossessthe"knowledge,motivation,mentalĻacuity[,]andlegalcounselnecessaryto...correctlychallengetheagency'saction."136F.3datĻ1309.Therefore,whentheappellantfileda"vagueNOD"totheVARO'sdecision,thisactionĻeffectivelyplacedallissuesonappealbeforetheBoardandeventually,thisCourt.ņņId.óóAlthoughtheŠ   	 hø&   Šappellant'sNODdidnotcontemplateanyoftheseissues,astheņņLedfordóóappellant'sNODdidnotŠ   	 Š  (   Šcontemplatethosesameissues,theFederalCircuitneverthelessheld,"InthecontextofwhatwasĻsupposedtobeanonadversarial,ņņexparteóó,paternalisticsystemforadjudicatingveterans'claims,Š   	  #š,   ŠCollaro's1989NODsufficientlyidentifiedtheconstitutionalandnoticeandrulemakingissuesthatĻhehadwiththeagency'sMarch28,1989letter."ņņId.óóat13091310.TheFederalCircuitthenmadeŠ   	 p&Ą!0   ŠanattempttoreconcilethisapparentconflictwithitsearlierdecisioninņņLedfordóóbystating,"UnlikeŠ   	 Ų'(#2   ŠLedford's1991NOD,whichspecificallyidentifiedandthuslimitedhisissuetotheeffectivedateĻofhisdisabilityrating,Collaro'sNODwasnotsonarrowlylimited."ņņId.óóNotably,theFederalŠ   	 Ø*ų%6   ŠCircuitdidnotdiscussthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustion.Furthermore,theFederalCircuitŠ   	 ,`'8   ŠnotedthattheappellanthadattemptedtoraisethesespecificissuestotheChairmanonamotionforĻreconsiderationwhiletheappellantinņņLedfordóóhadnot.Š   	 h   Šą     ąTheFederalCircuit'sdecisioninņņCollaroóóthusņņóóraisesthequestionwhetherornotanappellantŠ   	 Š   ŠwhodidnotpresentanissuetotheBoardmaypresentthatissuetotheChairmanoftheBoardinaĻmotionforreconsiderationinordertovestjurisdictionofthatissueinthisCourt.TheFederalĻCircuitpreviouslyhasheldthatan"actionbytheChairmanisnotadecisionoftheBoard"and,Ļtherefore,thisCourtdoesnothavejurisdictiontoreviewtheChairman'sactions,ifitdidnothaveĻjurisdictionovertheunderlyingBoarddecision.ņņMayerv.Brownóó,37F.3d618,620(Fed.Cir.Š   	 Ų	   Š1994).TheFederalCircuitexplainedthatwhile38U.S.C.šš7261allowstheCourttoreviewĻ"conclusions,rulesandregulationsissuedoradoptedby...theChairmanoftheBoard,"thissectionĻ"merelysetsoutthescopeofthereviewtobeconductedbythe[Court]incaseswithinitsĻjurisdiction;itdoesnotitselfcreatejurisdictioninthe[Court]."ņņId.óóInņņCollaroóó,theFederalCircuitŠ   	 (x   ŠdidnotexplainhowitsholdingwasconsistentwithņņMayeróó.Š   	 ą   Šą     ąInlightoftheforegoing,theCourtwillnowaddresswhetherornotithasjurisdictiontoĻconsidertheconstitutionalandAPAchallengesraisedbytheappellant.Asillustratedabove,theĻprecedentwhichthisCourtmustfollowisnotentirelyconsistent.Despitetheseinconsistencies,theĻCourtmustinterpretthelawasconsistentandrenderadecisioninthiscase.Ģą     ąInreconcilingtheaboveprecedent,theCourtmustfocusonwhatisconsistentratherthanĻwhatisnot.InņņLedfordóó,theFederalCircuitfoundthattheCourtpossessedjurisdictiontoreviewaŠ   	  P$   ŠBoarddecisionwhichwasthesubjectofapostNovember1988NODbut"didnoterrindecliningĻtoexercisejurisdictionoverthesechallenges"basedonthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustion.Ļ136F.3dat782.InņņCollaroóó,theFederalCircuitfoundthattheCourterredbyfindingthatitdidnotŠ   	 8"*   Šhavejurisdictiontoreviewtheveteran'schallenges.136F.3dat1310.TheFederalCircuitstatedĻthatthesechallengeswere"reviewable"butdidnotholdthatthisCourtcouldnotdeclinejurisdictionĻbasedonthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustioniftheywerenotpresentedtotheBoard.ņņId.óóŠ   	 p&Ą!0   Šą     ąAfteracarefulanalysisofalltheabovereferencedprecedent,theCourtholdsthatitĻpossessesjurisdictiontoreviewallchallengesandargumentsrelatingtoaparticularclaim,assumingĻallotherjurisdictionalrequirementsaremet.However,theCourtgenerallywilldeclinetoexerciseĻjurisdictionbaseduponthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustionwhentheappellanthasfailedtoŠ   	 ,`'8   Špresentthosechallengesandarguments,eitherexpresslyorimplicitly,totheBoard.Ofcourse,aĻgeneralrulepermitsexceptions.Forexample,iftheBoardcommitsaproceduralerroraftertheĻappellanthasfiledhisNODandSubstantiveAppeal,theCourtwouldbemoreinclinedtoexerciseĻitsjurisdictioninthatinstance.ņņCf.Thurberv.Brownóó,5Vet.App.119,126(1993)(BoarderredbyŠ   	 č8   ŠfailingtogivenoticeandreasonableopportunitytorespondtomedicaltreatisesrelieduponbytheĻBoardwhichwerenotintherecordonappeal).AnotherexampleofanexceptioncouldbeacaseĻsuchasņņAklesóówheretherecordonappealclearlyandunmistakablypresentsanissuetotheBoard.Š   	  p   ŠņņAklesóó,1Vet.App.at121.Š   	 Ų	   Šą     ąThisgeneralruleisconsistentwiththeapplicablestatutewhichstatesthattheappellantĻ"shouldsetout,"fortheconsiderationoftheBoard,"specificallegationsoferroroffactorlaw,suchĻallegationsrelatedtospecificitemsinthestatementofthecase."38U.S.C.šš7105(d)(3).WhileĻtheappellantisneverrequiredtocitetoparticularlawsorregulations,heorshemustbeabletoĻexpressthereasonswhytheVAROerred.ThisallowstheBoardtocarefullyscrutinizethesepointsĻofcontentionanddevelopafactualrecordforthisCourttoreview.AsnotedbytheFederalCircuit,Ļthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustionis"intenselypractical".ņņSeeLedfordóó,136F.3dat780.TheŠ   	 `°   Špurposeofthisdoctrineistodefineandrefinetheissueswhichidentifytheappellant'schallengesĻtotheagency'sdetermination.Withoutnotice,theBoardcannotproperlyaddressthereasonswhyĻtheappellantisdissatisfiedwiththeagency'sdetermination.ThisrulealsocorrelateswiththeĻlimitedjurisdictionofthisCourttoreview"decisionsoftheBoard."38U.S.C.šš7252(a);ņņaccordŠ   	  P$   ŠLedfordóó,136F.3dat779;ņņseealsoCedarLumber,Inc.v.UnitedStatesóó;857F.2d765,767(Fed.Cir.Š   	 hø&   Š1988)(generalruleisthatargumentsnotpresentedtothe"initialadjudicatoryforum"aredeemedĻwaivedonappeal).Ģą     ąInsoholding,theCourtiswellawarethattheadjudicativesystemestablishedbyCongressĻandadministeredbytheSecretaryismeanttobestronglyproclaimant.Indeed,itisthisCourtthatĻrecognizedjudiciallyforthefirsttimetheuniquelyproclaimantenvironmentinwhichtheseclaimsĻaretobeadjudicated.However,thisproclaimantenvironmentdoesnotleaveusfreetoignoreĻstatutesandimplementingregulationsimposingdutiesonclaimantindefiningtheirclaims.ĻņņCf.Baileyv.Westóó,160F.3d1360,13681371(Fed.Cir.1998)(Michel,J.,concurring).ņņóóTheseŠ   	 Ø*ų%6   Šprovisionsmust,ofcourse,beinterpretedinagenerousmannertodeterminewhether,perhaps,anŠ   	 ,`'8   Šissuewasimplied.However,wecannotpretendthattheydonotexistnorcanwe,intheguiseofĻ"interpretation,"repealthem.Inthisconnection,itisnotedthatCongressandtheSecretaryhaveĻprovidedforaccreditedrepresentativestoassistclaimantstonavigatetheclaimsprocess.TheseĻindividualsarenotgenerallylawyersbuttheymaybefarmoreattunedtotheproceduralesotericaĻoftheVAclaimssystemthanmostlawyers.Inthisparticularcase,aswehavenoted,theappellantĻwasrepresented,quiteactively,bysuchanaccreditedrepresentative.Ģą     ąAlloftheaboveanalysisappliesiftheappellantdidnotraiseanargumenttotheBoardbutĻlaterraisedittotheChairmaninamotionforreconsideration.ThemotionforreconsiderationdoesĻnotaffecttheCourt'sjurisdictiontohearargumentsonappeal.ņņSeeMayeróó,37F.3dat620.IftheŠ   	 š@   ŠChairmandeniesthemotionforreconsideration,theCourtstillmayproperlydeclinetoexerciseitsĻjurisdictionoverthoseargumentsunderthedoctrineofadministrativeexhaustionbecausetheywereĻnotraisedtotheBoard.Ģą@    ČČ; ģ ąA.ņņManualM211óóŠ   	 ą   Šą     ąTheappellantfirstarguesthattheSecretaryviolatedadutytodeveloptheappellant'sclaimĻeventhoughitwasnotwellgrounded.TheappellantarguesthatintheņņVAAdjudicationŠ   	 `°   ŠProcedureManual,M211,óóPartIII,paras.1.03b,1.04a,andPartVI,para.2.10[hereinafterŠ   	 Č   ŠņņManualM211óó]theSecretaryvoluntarilyassumedadutytodevelopclaimsbeforetheywereŠ   	 0    Šwell-grounded.Ģą     ąInņņMortonv.Westóó,12Vet.App.477(1999),thisCourtupheldtheprincipleoutlinedinŠ   	  P$   ŠņņGrivoisv.Brownóó,6Vet.App.136(1994),thatabsentawellgroundedclaim,thereisnostatutoryŠ   	 hø&   Šdutytoassist.InņņMortonóó,theCourtexpandedthatholdingtoconcludethattheņņManualM211óódoesŠ   	 Š  (   Šnottriggerthedutytoassistbeforetheclaimanthassubmittedawell-groundedclaim.ņņSeeMorton,Š   	 8"*   Šsupra.óóTheCourtrendereditsdecisionwithoutfindingthattheCourthadjurisdictiontohearthisŠ   	  #š,   Šargumentandspecificallystatedthatthatdecisionwouldberenderedbythiscase.Onthisissue,theĻCourtwilldeclinetoexercisejurisdictiontoconsiderthisargumentbecauseitwasnotraisedtotheĻBoard.Moreover,itmustalsobenotedthatņņMortonóóresolvedthisissuesuchthattheappellantcouldŠ   	 Ų'(#2   ŠnotprevaileveniftheCourtdeemeditappropriatetoconsiderhischallenge.TheCourt,therefore,ĻfindsthattheBoarddidnoterrinfailingtodeveloptheappellant'sclaimpriortohissubmissionofĻawellgroundedclaim.Š   	 ,`'8   Šą@    : ģ ąB.DutytoInformĢą     ąTheappellant'ssecondargumentisthatunder38U.S.C.šš5103andņņRobinettev.Brownóó,Š   	 h   Š8Vet.App.69(1995),theSecretaryhadadutytoinformhimwhatspecificevidenceheshouldĻsubmittowellgroundhisclaim.InņņRobinetteóó,theCourtheldthatwhen"theSecretarywasonnoticeŠ   	 č8   Šthatrelevantevidencemayhaveexisted,orcouldhavebeenobtained,that,iftrue,wouldhavemadeĻtheclaim'plausible'andthatsuchevidencehadnotbeensubmittedwiththeapplication[,]...uponĻreceiptofthehearsaystatementfromtheveteran,theSecretaryhadanobligationundersectionĻ5103(a)"toinformtheclaimant"whatevidenceisrequired...to'complete'hisapplication."Ļ8Vet.App.at80.Theappellantcontendsthathehadevidenceavailablewhichwouldrenderń ³ńedń³ńń“ńŌ%     Ōń“ńhisĻclaimwellgrounded,butwasnottoldthatheshouldsubmitthatevidenceuntilaftertheBoard'sĻdecision.Ģą     ąTheCourtinņņRobinetteóódidnotconsiderthedoctrineofexhaustionofadministrativeremediesŠ   	 (x   ŠbecausethatopinionwasissuedpriortotheFederalCircuit'sdecisioninņņLedfordóó.TheCourtmustŠ   	 ą   ŠconsiderwhetherourdecisioninņņRobinetteóówasabrogatedbyņņLedfordóó.AftercarefulconsiderationŠ   	 ųH   ŠoftheFederalCircuit'sanalysisinņņLedfordóóandņņCollaroóó,theCourtholdsthatņņLedfordóódoesnotŠ   	 `°   ŠprohibitthisCourtfromhearingappealsonthisissue.Asdescribedabove,itistheresponsibilityĻoftheclaimanttobringallerrorsoftheVAROtotheattentionoftheBoardsothatitmayproperlyĻaddress,andifappropriate,remedy,theseallegederrors.Aswithanyerror,theappellantmustĻexhaustalladministrativeremedies,beforebringinganappealtothisCourt,includingerrorsunderĻ38U.S.C.šš5103.WhenitisallegedthatthereisspecifichearsayevidenceinexistencethatwouldĻmanifestlywellgroundaclaim,aswasthecaseinņņRobinetteóó,theSecretaryhasadutytoinformtheŠ   	 Š  (   Šclaimantofwhatisrequiredtocompletetheapplication.InņņRobinetteóó,theappellantimpliedlyraisedŠ   	 8"*   ŠthisissuetotheBoardontherecord,eventhoughitmightnotbecontainedinhisNODorĻSubstantiveAppeal.Forexample,inņņRobinetteóó,theappellantstatedthathisdoctortoldhimthathisŠ   	 %X .   Šdisease"mostprobably"existedatthetimeofhisdischarge.8Vet.App.at73.TheBoardisĻrequiredtodiscussallmaterialfactswhichare"presentedontherecord."Bysodoing,theappellantĻinņņRobinetteóóeffectivelyraisedthisissueontherecordandtotheBoard,eventhoughhedidnotciteŠ   	 @)$4   Šā
    
 āto38U.S.C.šš5103,which,ofcourse,heisnotrequiredtodo.ņņSeeAkles,óó1Vet.App.at120121.Š   	 Ø*ų%6   Šą     ąHowever,inthiscase,theappellantandhisrepresentativedidnotraisethisissueineitherĻā
    
 ātheNOD,theSubstantiveAppeal,orthepresentationtotheBoardnorcanitbeinferredfromtheĻrecord.ThisissuewasnotframedbytheSOC.Furthermore,unlikeņņRobinetteóó,therecordonappealŠ   	 Š   ŠdidnotputtheBoardonnoticethatsuchspecificandmaterialevidencewasavailable.InhisĻSubstantiveAppeal,theappellantmerelystatedwhatappearstobeahearsayreiterationofdiagnosesĻrenderedbyDr.JohnsonandDr.Moorethathisdiscwaspermanentlyinjured"quiteawhileago,"Ļresultinginapermanentdisabilitywithaguardedprognosis.Immediatelyfollowingthestatement,Ļtheappellantwrotethename,address,andtelephonenumberofDr.Johnson,andidentifiedDr.ĻMooreofHenryFordHospital.Duringhispersonalhearing,theappellantreferredagaintoDr.ĻJohnsonandtheHenryFordHospital,statingthatthedoctortoldhimthathisdiscshadĻdisintegrated.Healsomentionedthattherehadbeen"about9doctorswholookedat[him]backĻwhenIwasapplyingformySocialSecurity.Theyallcameupwiththesamething,thatthis[hisĻintervertebraldisc]isgone."ń ³ńń³ńĢą     ąTheappellantarguesthattheSecretaryerredinfailingtoinformtheappellantthathisclaimĻmightbewellgroundedifheweretoobtainandsubmitrecordsfromDr.Johnson,Dr.Moore,orĻHenryFordHospital,becausetheappellantclearlyassertsthatthemedicalrecordswouldĻdemonstrateacurrentdiagnosis,andthereisaveryremotepossibilitythatwherethereisadiagnosisĻtheremayalsobeanaccompanyingetiologicalopinion.Ontheotherhand,therecordcontainsnoĻactualreferenceorintimationthatanyoftheappellant'streatingphysicianshaveopinedthattheĻcontinuousbackpainisrelatedtothefallinservicethatoccurredmorethan30yearspriortotheirĻtreatmentorthecurrentcondition.Therefore,theappellanthasnotshownthattheredoesormayĻexistevidencewhichwouldmaketheclaimplausible.TheCourtfindsthatsection5103(a)wasnotĻinvokedbytherecordbecauseeveniftherecordsmentionedbytheappellantdidcontaineverythingĻinthemthattheappellantsaidtheydid,thereisnoallusiontoanyevidencethatwouldormightĻshowthatacausativeconnectionexistsbetweenthein-serviceinjuryandthecurrentbackcondition.ĻInconclusion,theCourtwilldeclinetoexercisejurisdictiononthisissuesinceitwasneitherraisedĻbytheappellantnortherecordbeforetheBoard.Ģą@    ģģC ģ ąŠ	   	 Ø*ų%6   ŠńŖńÓ   ÓńŖńC.DueProcessĢńŖńÓ  ­Ļ   ÓńŖńą     ąTheappellantalsocomplainsthatVAviolatedproceduraldueprocessbecauseitfailedtoĻinformhim"thatitwouldnotaccepthearsay,andneededdirectdoctors'statementsaddressingtheĻissuesinthecase."Appellant'sReplyBriefat4.TheappellantmisconstrueswhattheVAĻadjudicatorsdidinthiscase.TheydidacceptthefactthattherewasacurrentbackconditionthatĻhadbeenfirstdiagnosedbymedicaldoctors34yearsafterappellant'sdischarge.Inshort,theydidĻcreditthedoctor'sstatementsforwhatevertheywereworth.Evenso,theappellantinthiscaseraisedĻtheissuesofdueprocessforthefirsttimeinhisbriefbeforetheCourt.TheseissuesarenotripeforĻadjudicationandneednotbeaddressedonthemerits.TheappellantdidnotraisetheseissuesinhisĻNOD,inhisSubstantiveAppeal,orinhispresentationtotheBoard.Furthermore,theseissueswereĻnotimplicitlyraisedbytherecordbeforetheBoard.Instead,therecordreflectsthatVAinformedĻtheappellantonnumerousoccasionswhatwasrequiredinordertoserviceconnecthisdisabilities.ĻInSeptember1992,theVAROspecificallyrequestedthatheprovideallhismedicalrecordssinceĻhisdischargeandsuggestedthathesubmitstatementsfromtreatingphysiciansdescribinghisĻcondition.TheOctober1992VAROdecisionstatedthathisclaimwasdeniedbecausehehadnotĻproducedanymedicalevidence.TheSOCalsostatedthathisclaimhadbeendeniedbecausehehadĻnotprovidedanyevidencetoshowarelationshipbetweenhiscurrentconditionandhismilitaryĻservice.Finally,inJune1993,thehearingofficerindicatedtotheappellantandhisrepresentativeĻthatheshouldsubmitmedicalevidenceinsupportofhisclaim.Insum,theevidenceofrecordĻreflectsthatthisissuewasneitherraisedbytheappellantnorbytherecordonappealandtheCourtĻwillnotexerciseitsjurisdictionoverit.Ģą@    ;;, ģ ąD.DutytoSuggestThatEvidenceBeSubmittedĢą     ąTheappellantcomplainsthatthehearingofficerfailedtocomplywiththedutiesoutlinedinĻ38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2),whichstates:ĢŅ  ° ŅŅ   ° ŅÓ        ÓThepurposeofahearingistopermittheclaimanttointroduceintotherecord,ņņinŠ   	 p&Ą!0   Šperson,óóanyavailableevidencewhichheorsheconsidersmaterialandanyargumentsŠ   	 `'°"1   ŠorcontentionswithrespecttothefactsandapplicablelawwhichheorshemayĻconsiderpertinent....ItistheresponsibilityoftheVAemployeeoremployeesĻconductingthehearingstoexplainfullytheissuesandsuggestthesubmissionofĻevidencewhichtheclaimantmayhaveoverlookedandwhichwouldbeofadvantageĻtotheclaimant'sposition.Ó       Ų   ÓÓ        ÓŠ   	 ,`'6   ŠÓ       ļŚ   ÓÓ     Q     ÓĢŅ   °Ų   ŅŅ  °uŲ   ŅÓ       ,Ū   ÓņņId.óó(emphasisinoriginal).Thesedutiesaredistinctfromthedutytoinformunder38U.S.C.šš5103.Š   	  š    ŠņņSeeBrewerv.Westóó,11Vet.App.228(1998).Š   	 X   Šą     ąForthesamereasonsasdiscussedaboveunder38U.S.C.šš5103,theCourtwilldeclinetoĻexerciseitsjurisdictionoverthisissue.NeithertherecordonappealnortheappellantraisedthisĻissuetotheBoard.TherecordonappealsuggestedthatadditionalevidencefromDr.Johnson,Dr.ĻMoore,andtheHenryFordHospitalexistedregardingthediagnosisoftheappellant'scurrentbackĻcondition.However,thereisnosuggestionthatthisevidencewouldshowanexustoaneventthatĻoccurredsome50yearsagothatwouldwellgroundtheappellant'sclaim.Therefore,theevidenceĻdoesnotindicatethatitwould"beofadvantagetotheappellant'sposition"andthehearingofficerĻhadnoobligationtoadvisetheappellantwhowaspresentwithhisaccreditedrepresentativetoĻsubmitadditionalevidence.ņņSeeóó38C.F.R.šš3.103(c)(2);ņņMoffittv.Brownóó,10Vet.App.214,228Š   	 °    Š(1997)(noprejudicialerrorunderšš3.103(c)(2)wherehearingofficerfailedtosuggestsubmittingĻmedicalevidencewhichwastoospeculativetoconstitutenexusevidence);ņņJohnson(Ethel),Š   	 Š   Šóó8Vet.App.at42728(nošš3.103(c)(2)errorwheremedicalevidencecouldnotsatisfynexuselementŠ   	 č8   Šofwell-groundedclaim).Sinceneithertherecordonappealnortheappellantraisedthisissue,theĻCourtwilldeclinetoexercisejurisdictionbecausetheappellanthasfailedtoexhausthisĻadministrativeremedies,byraisingthemattertotheBoardinatimelymanner.ĢĢą@    ; ģ ąņņIII.CONCLUSIONóóŠ   	 š@%   Šą     ąAfterconsiderationofthepleadingsandareviewoftherecord,theCourtholdsthattheĻappellanthasnotdemonstratedthattheBVAcommittedeitherlegalorfactualerrorwhichwouldĻwarrantreversalorremand.TheCourtisalsosatisfiedthattheBVAdecisionfulfillsthe"reasonsĻorbases"requirementsof38U.S.C.šš7104(d)(1),andthebenefitofthedoubtdoctrineof38U.S.C.Ļšš5107(b).ņņSeeGilbert,supraóó.Š   	 ų%H!/   Šą     ąThedecisionoftheBoardisAFFIRMED.ń«ńŌ%      Ōń«ńÓ         Ó