WPCA /"}y֜pQ{J[ӗk?94iGѽ PvMr8#7sM.+/vh'bhR;z۞#j% *FIf@ʿ(Me7C:k#".ԍ9DY_\f9 0z 0J . 0=? 0F| 0P 1 0 1 0E 0%EZ&-\&# &nX' 0r( B^) {) ) 1m)i) 0cc---!X0!0!1!3U4!04 ) @5 L5"][69 @Aw@FA4A A A AV& 8Document[8]Document Style0..8` ..` V8Document[4]Document Style.. . V 8Document[6]Document Style8..V 8Document[5]Document Style0..V/8Document[2]Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   V& 8Document[7]Document Style0..0` ..` zU :Right Par[1]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..2I.3  Ԁ..0..zh :Right Par[2]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..2A.3  Ԁ..0` ..` V?8Document[3]Document Style.. 21.3  Ԁ   z{ :Right Par[3]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  ..P 21.3  Ԁ` ..` 0 .. z :Right Par[4]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. .. 2a.3  Ԁ .. 0..z :Right Par[5]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..2(1)3  Ԁ..0h..hz :Right Par[6]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h..2(a)3  Ԁh..h0..z :Right Par[7]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....2i)3  Ԁ..0..z :Right Par[8]Right-Aligned Paragraph Numbers..` ..`  .. ..h..h....p..2a)3  Ԁ..0p..pVX8Document[1]Document Style  @..^  2I.3  Ԁ     Ԉ l2:Technical[5]Technical Document Style.. 2(1)3  Ԁ. l2:Technical[6]Technical Document Style.. 2(a)3  Ԁ. l/%:Technical[2]Technical Document Style 2A.3  Ԁ   .. l,!:Technical[3]Technical Document Style 21.3  Ԁ   .. l(!:Technical[4]Technical Document Style 2a.3  Ԁ   .. l:0:Technical[1]Technical Document Style  2I.3  Ԁ     .. l1:Technical[7]Technical Document Style.. 2i)3  Ԁ. l1:Technical[8]Technical Document Style.. 2a)3  Ԁ. <6X9`(Courier9X)\  `&TmsRmnLegal ProR& 8BibliogrphyBibliography0....fp2Doc InitInitialize Document StyleS "    I. 1. A. a.(1)(a) i) a)S !($0 ($0 0 (($0 0 0   A_ekqwDocumentDocument StyleI.1.A.a.(1)(a)i)a)jo4Tech InitInitialize Technical StyleS $  1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 S CuyTechnicalTechnical Document Style11.11.1.11.1.1.11.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.11.1.1.1.1.1.1.1xF2PleadingHeader for numbered pleading paper 1Ka:; Sr NEBEKERAppBVAC.F.R.ColvinDerwinskiVet.App RO FEV1FVCBerksBarnhillEberhardPfallerAumanU.S.C.CoxMasorsGlynn"readjudicated"Allday81stEPTIPelecioWongNestorTambioMooreHatlestadO'HareCartrightRicardoDiamsayPTBPerlasP.T.B.ArsenioBangarNPRCSalongVisaliaMcCalop Rt Fayetteville VAMCLibriumStanton$extraschedular$Horowitz$readjudication$Reiberbanc attrubitable CeasarShogrenGrottveitcruciatemeniscalLinsdayOTHBCDENTmotrinWestsideTinelyElginNicoleMantenoTirpakEspirituRobinetteLaynoDixonClydeV.A.CHD groundedness ReonalJ[onesLouRonGarvinAdrienneKoerberGordonHeuers]uchKRAMERFARLEYBarnettaff'd 3d op McGinnis(e2,$ ,!9X<XX9XX[XX9X<    ##Xd#HP LaserJet 5P/5MP (HP)HPPCL5G,,,,,,0nLFΫ<6X9`(CourierXx6X@8;X@)\  `&TmsRmnLegal ProXXt\  PPUXP(J$XXXXXXXX   dȿnc m2#Re37=CIQYag1.a.i.(1)(a)(i)1)a) _ '(  XXXXXX>-('*d>>-('*d>H1H2H3H4H5H6H7H8H910111213141516171819202122232425262728"  .+ '++"(;$2Re  0  .3  0  3|QR)_    ' DOWDJE0DOWDJE .   "@HOZqE?00004/Nmpϟ @2RQ@LL "^4@@d0LLd0@0ddddddddddd88dĘ|HXxlĘ@d@dd0dlXld@`l84h8llllLL@l\XXXddd/d)dddlld$@"^4@@d4LLd0@0ddddddddddd88`ĀxPd|t|TdTdd4hlXpX@`p<@l  SeanKendall,Esq.,wasonthepleadingsfortheappellant. t   LeighA.Bradley,GeneralCounsel;RonGarvin,AssistantGeneralCounsel;ThomasA. V McLaughlin,SpecialAssistanttotheAssistantGeneralCounsel;andAmyS.Gordonwereonthe H pleadingsfortheappellee.  BeforeNEBEKER,ChiefJudge,andHOLDAWAYandGREENE,Judges. j   NEBEKER,ChiefJudge:OnSeptember23,1998,theappellantfiledhisNoticeofAppeal L (NOA)fromaMay18,1998,BoardofVeterans'Appeals(BoardorBVA)decision.TheSecretarymovedtodismisstheappealbecausetheappellant'sNOAwasreceivedbytheCourt128daysaftertheBVAmaileditsdecision.TheCourtdismissedtheappealinasinglejudgeorderofFebruary18,1999,forlackofjurisdiction.PursuanttoRule35(b)oftheCourt'sRulesofPracticeandProcedure,onMarch11,1999,theappellantfiledamotionforapaneldecisionwhichtheCourtnowgrants.Theissueiswhethertheveteran'slettertotheChairmanoftheBVA,withinthe120dayNOAperiod,tolledtherunningofthatperiodsothattheNOA,filed128daysaftertheBoard'sdecision,wastimely.Indeterminingourjurisdiction,welooktothatlettertodeterminewhetheritwasarequestforreconsideration,orshouldhavebeensotreatedbytheChairman.WeholdthattheletterdidnottolltherunningoftheNOAperiodbecauseit -_(0 )7[XXdXXd7  ))7[XXdXXd7  )))7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )7[XXdXXd7  )wasnot))7=XXdXXd7  )))7=XXdXXd7  )arequestforreconsiderationorthefunctionalequivalentofone.Accordingly,the  Secretary'smotiontodismisswillbegranted.  Notsurprisingly,thepartiestakeoppositeviewsastotheletter.Theappellantarguesthat"[t]heBVAabuseditsdiscretionbynottreatingMr.Brown'sAugust11,1998,letterasamotionforreconsideration."(Appellant'smotionat2).Ofcourse,theBVAhadnopowerinthematter;reconsiderationisfortheChairmantoorder,andgenerallyhisactionsdenyingsuchrequestsarebeyondthejurisdictionofthisCourt.Mayerv.Brown,37F.3d618(Fed.Cir.1994).  p    ThequestionwhetherwecandecidewhateffecttheAugust1998letterhadonthefinalityoftheBoard'sdecisionhasbeendecidedbyBlackburnv.Brown,8Vet.App.97,101(1995). @  We,however,declinetheinvitationbytheSecretaryandtheveterantoapplyanabuseofdiscretionstandardtotheChairman'sdeterminationthattheletterdidordidnottolltheNOAperiod.TodosowouldbeareviewoftheChairman'saction,whichMayerprecludes.Wewill, (x thus,looktothatletterandmakeourowndecisionastoitseffectonthetollingquestion.First,however,wemustexaminetherequirementsofamotionforreconsiderationtodeterminewhethertheappellant'sAugust1998lettersatisfiesthoserequirements.  ThesubstantiverequirementsforamotionforreconsiderationofaBVAdecision,foundat38C.F.R.20.1000.1003,areinpertinentpart:8  [Amotionforreconsideration]must...setforthclearlyandspecificallytheallegedobviouserror,orerrors,offactorlawintheapplicabledecision,ordecisions,oftheBoardorotherappropriatebasisforrequestingReconsideration.Iftheapplicable[Board]decision,ordecisions,involvedmorethanoneissueonappeal,themotionforreconsiderationmustidentifythespecificissue,orissues,towhichthemotionpertains.Issuesnotsoidentifiedwillnotbeconsideredinthedispositionofthemotion.    g38C.F.R.20.1001(a).Furthermore,theCourtnotesthatitisVA'spracticetoattachacopyofVAForm4597totheirdecisionswhentheyaremailedtoaveteran.VAForm4597providesnoticeoftheadministrativeandappellaterightsavailabletoaveteranpursuanttoaBoarddecisionandstatesintheparagraphlabeled"MotionforReconsideration":8  [Theappellant]canfilea"motion"askingtheBVAtoreconsideritsdecisionbywritingalettertotheBVAshowingwhy[theappellant]believe[s]thattheBVAcommittedanobviouserroroffactorlawinitsdecisioninyourappeal,or ,`'5 showingthatnewandmaterialmilitaryservicerecordshavebeendiscoveredthatareapplicabletoyourappeal.IftheBVAdecidedmorethanoneissue,besuretotelluswhichissuesyouwantreconsidered.Addressyourletterto:Director,AdministrativeService(014),BoardofVeterans'Appeals....Thereisnotimelimitforfilingamotionforreconsideration.    %VAForm4597,(1).VAForm4579providesamoreunderstandableinterpretationoftherequirementsofamotionforreconsideration.  DuplicatesoftheBoarddecisionbeforetheCourtinthisappealdonotreflecttheinclusionofacopyofVAForm4579.However,inaswornstatement,theViceChairmanoftheBVA,RichardB.Standefer,declaredthat"[a]ttachedtothecopyoftheBoard'sdecisionmailedto[Mr.Brown]wasacopyofVAForm4597,whichprovidesnoticeofthevariousadministrativeandappellaterightsoptionsavailableintheeventanappellantisnotsatisfiedwiththeBoard'sdecision."  Theappellant'sAugust1998letterstatedinpertinentpart:"Itismyintentandisfurtherrequestedthatthisdecisionbeappealed[sic]intheappropriatemannerandthatahearingbescheduledinwhichImayappearandpresentpersonaltestimonyandadditionalevidentiarymaterial."Healsosoughtinformation"outliningmyrightsandresponsibilitiesrelatedtothisprocess."(Exhibit1attachedtotheSecretary'sJanuary25,1999,responsetotheCourt'sJanuary13,1999,order.)Thelettermadenomentionofreconsideration.  TheAugust1998letterdidnotcomportwiththerequirementthatit"setforthclearlyandspecificallytheallegedobviouserror,orerrors,offactsorlaw,"asrequiredby38C.F.R.20.1001(a),nordiditreveal"why[Mr.Brown]believe[ed]thattheBVAcommittedanobviouserroroffactorlawinitsdecision...orshow[]thatnewandmaterialmilitaryservicerecords[had]beendiscoveredthat[were]applicableto[Mr.Brown's]appeal"perVAForm4597.  Furthermore,theCourtnotesthattheappellanthadappealedthreeseparateissuestotheBoard.Theseinclude:(1)entitlementtoserviceconnectionforaleftanklecondition;(2)thequestionwhethernewandmaterialevidencehadbeenreceivedsufficienttoreopenanadministrativedecisionaddressingtheappellant'scharacterofdischargeduringtheperiodfromJune11,1981,toJune11,1985;and,(3)entitlementtoserviceconnectionforposttraumaticstresssyndrome(PTSD).SeeMarvinD.Brown,BVA9533645,at1(May18,1998).Again, ,`'6 theAugustletterdidnotcomportwiththerequirementthatamotionforreconsiderationmust"identifythespecificissue,orissues,towhichthemotionpertains,"asrequiredby38C.F.R.20.1001(a),nordidit"tell[theBoard]whichissues[Mr.Brown]want[ed]reconsidered"perVAForm4597.Thus,theAugust1998letterdoesnotsatisfythemostbasicrequirementsofamotionforreconsideration.  Whetherthelettercouldoperateastheequivalentofamotionforreconsiderationisanotherquestion.TheSecretary'smemorandumresponsetotheCourt'sorderofMay13,1999,addresseswhether,intheexparte,nonadversarialVAprocess,thatlettercouldoperateastheequivalentofarequestforreconsideration.Essentially,theSecretaryarguesthattheAugust1998letter"lackedtheindiciaofareconsiderationrequest,"andtheChairmandidnotabusehisdiscretionindeterminingso.Secretary'sJune30,1999,responsetotheCourt'sMa)(% ? ()y13,1999,orderat79.Inhisresponse,theSecretarydistinguishestheinstantcasefromthesimilarcaseofPerezv.Derwinski(,2Vet.App.149(1992)(.Id.at45.Theveteran'scounselhasnotsoughtleavetorespondtothat  memorandum.Underthecircumstances,elaborationonthedistinctionsbetweenPerezandthe H instantcasewillbehelpful.  InPerez,thecontentofaveteran'spostdecisionalcorrespondencewiththeBoardwasa  keyfocalpointinassessingtheapplicationofthetollingdoctrine.SeePerezv.Derwinski, 0  2(((Vet.A(((Vet.A((pp.149(1992).Aftertheveteran'sinitialrequestforBoardreconsiderationofitsdecisionwasdeniedbythechairman,theveteransentasecondletter,andlaterathirdletterrequestingreconsideration.Thelattertwoletterswereansweredunfavorably,butneitherwastreatedbytheBoardasamotionforreconsiderationeventhoughthey,likethefirstletter,gavetheissueofserviceconnectionandfailuretoapplythereasonabledoubtdoctrineasthereasonsforaskingforreconsideration.Perez,2Vet.App.at14950.TheCourt,takingcognizanceoftheregulatory #, requirementthatamotionforreconsiderationsetforthclearlyandspecificallytheallegedobviouserrorsoffactorlawintheBoard'sdecision,concludedthateachoftheveteran'sthreelettersshouldhavebeenconsideredmotionsforreconsideration,astherewasnolegalrequirementthateachsucceedingreconsiderationmotioncontainnewallegationsoferroroffactorlaw.Id.at150. @)$4 Specifically,theCourtnotedthat"[a]llthreeoftheappellant'slettersgavetheissueofserviceconnectionandfailuretoapplythedoctrineofreasonabledoubtasthereasonsforaskingfor ,`'8 reconsiderationand'rereview.'"Id.at149.ThereisnothingofthekindinMr.Brown'sAugust  1998letter.ThePerezdecisionisanexampleofafactualsituationsodifferentfromtheinstant h caseastodemonstrateconsistencybetweenthesetwoholdingsastowhattollsandwhatdoesnottollanNOAperiod.Thus, theCourtholdsthattheAugust1998letterisnottheequivalentofa 8 requestforreconsideration;atbest,itisarequesttopresentadditionalevidenceatahearing.Assuchitdoesnotoperatetotollthe120dayNOAperiod.  Theveterannowarguesthathewas"inducedortricked"intomissingthe120daydeadlinebecausetheVAinformedhimthattocontinuehisappeal,hecouldsendanNOAtotheBVA.HereliesonBaileyv.West,160F.3d1360,1364(Fed.Cir.1998).InhisJanuary4,1999,response @  totheCourt'sDecember4,1998,ordertoshowcausewhytheappealshouldnotbedismissed,counselfortheveteransaysitshouldnotbedismissedbecausetheveteranacted"[u]poninformationandbelief...[that]approximatelysixweeksafterthe[Board's]decision...[t]heVARegionalOfficetoldhimthathecouldappealtoeithertheCourtortheBVAwithinthe120)% B ))(d()((d((dayperiodbysendingalettertoeitherstatingthathewishedtoappeal."  ThisallegationisnotdocumentedinthematerialbeforetheCourtandcanplaynopartinourdiscussionofthedispositionofthemotiontodismiss.TheBoard'sdecisionisinthematerialbeforetheCourtandthe"NoticeofAppellateRights"(Brown,BVA9533645,at11)clearlyand 0  correctlyinformedtheveteranofthoserightsandhisresponsibilities.Cummingsv.West,136 " F.3d1468(Fed.Cir.1998).UnderthesecircumstancestheBaileydecision,isinappositetothis P$ case.  Theveteranalsoarguesthattheappealshouldbedismissedasprematurebecause,inhisview,theAugust1998letterisarequestforreconsiderationyettobeacteduponbytheChairman.Ourholdingthattheletterisnotareconsiderationrequestisdispositiveofthisargument.  Accordingly,thesinglejudgeorderofFebruary18,1999,isREVOKEDand,forthereasonsstatedabove,theSecretary'smotionisgrantedandtheappealisDISMISSED.((% . ((