Watkins: ACDUTRA and Travel in the Context of a VA Claim

Watkins v. McDonough, Case Number 20-5612, decided June 2, 2022 discusses when a Reservist qualifies as a veteran for the purposes of VA benefits.

The veteran served in the Navy from 1984 until 1992 and then in the Naval Reserves from 1992 until 1997 with various periods of active duty for training (ACDUTRA). 

The case concerns ACDUTRA, travel to and from ACDUTRA, and a diagnosis of a bipolar condition.  She lived in Memphis, Tennessee and in 1997 she received orders to report for ACDUTRA at a Naval Hospital in Florida for 12 days, plus one day for travel and report no later than June 2, 1997.  On June 2, 1997, she was admitted to a civilian hospital in Little Rock, Arkansas for acute psychotic symptoms, discharged on June 12, 1997 and within the month was diagnosed with bipolar disorder.  Meanwhile, she was on ACDUTRA from July 21, 1997 until August 1, 1997 in Pensacola.  She was discharged from the reserves in December 1997.

She filed a claim for service connection for bipolar disorder alleging she first developed the disorder in June 1997 when reporting for ACDUTRA, specifically when she was authorized to travel to her duty station.  The RO and Board denied, noting she was in Arkansas rather than following an itinerary from Memphis, Tennessee to Pensacola, Florida.

The Court begins with the law as to ACDUTRA and states: “When a claim for service connection is based on a period of [ACDUTRA], there must be evidence that the individual concerned became disabled as a result of a disease or injury incurred or aggravated in the line of duty during the period of [ACDUTRA].  In the absence of evidence of a disability incurred or aggravated during ACDUTRA, the period "would not qualify as 'active military, naval, or air service,' and the claimant would not achieve veteran status."  ACDUTRA means "full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes," and "authorized travel to or from such duty."”

The Court then determined the Board’s statement of reasons or bases were inadequate.  It explained “the Board's denial of appellant's claim based on its assessment that appellant deviated from her travel itinerary as reflected in her Advance Orders is inadequate for multiple reasons.” 

First, it does not explain how the orders required her to follow a specific itinerary.  The Court found: “There is nothing in the Advance Orders that provides a route appellant was required to follow or destinations that were off-limits. Because there is nothing in the Advance Orders to suggest that the Naval Reserve required appellant to follow a specific route to reach Pensacola, the basis of the Board's decision is questionable at best.”

Second, the “Advance Orders specifically authorized "travel via [privately owned vehicle (POV)]" and "if POV is used," appellant would be reimbursed for costs associated with that travel, in accordance with JTRs.  The Advance Orders expressly refer to the JTRs that concern appellant's travel. The Board did not discuss these regulations at all even though the Advance Orders specifically refer to them and the Board's rationale was focused on travel. The failure to discuss the JTRs is not trivial given the Board's reasoning. As appellant points out, the JTRs allow for indirect or circuitous routes at the service member's personal expense. This provision of the JTRs directly affects whether appellant deviated from any "itinerary" that may have been provided. Indeed, they suggest that any deviation related only to reimbursement for expenses and not "veteran" status. But, as we have said, the Board discussed none of this.”

The Court then went further and provided guidance to the Board, stating: the Board must consider the application of U.S. v. Cline, 29 M.J. 83 (C.M.A. 1989) and the Board must fully explain how it reads her advance orders.

This is a valuable case that should be a starting point for any cases involving travel status or ACDUTRA.  It also leads attorneys to at least consider how Cline (a court marial case that is not binding on the Veteran's Court) applies to the facts in their case and can be used as persuasive authority.

Decision by Judge Allen and joined by Chief Judge Bartley and Pietsch.

To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.