Grounds: The Federal Circuit Considers Bars to Veteran Eligibility for VA Benefits

Grounds v. McDonough, Case Number 2022-1607, decided July 14, 2023 was a case before the Federal Circuit concerning eligibility for benefits as a veteran.

The veteran served in the Army from 1969 until 1972 and then was charged with being AWOL.  To avoid a trial by court-martial, he requested a discharge from the Army “for the good of the service.”  He was in fact discharged “for the good of the service” and under conditions other than honorable.” 

When he applied for veteran’s benefits, he was denied because his multiple periods of AWOL constituted a pattern of willful and persistent misconduct and thus the discharge was considered “dishonorable” for the purposes of VA benefits.

The veteran argued that section 5303(a) does not bar him from receiving VA benefits because (1) he was never convicted for any AWOL offense and (2) his AWOL periods did not run 180 days or longer. Thus, the Veterans Court’s finding that Mr. Grounds’ AWOL offenses amounted to willful and persistent misconduct under section 3.12(d)(4) is inconsistent with section 5303(a).

The Federal Circuit agreed that Section 5303(a) does not bar the veteran from obtaining VA benefits.  But, the Federal Circuit found section 5303(a) was not the basis for the denial of benefits.  The Court explained: “Instead, the Board’s decision was grounded on, entirely appropriately, a regulation – specifically, section 3.12(d)(4). As we held in Garvey, 972 F.3d at 1334, “[s]ection 5303 . . . is not the exclusive test for benefits eligibility.” There we further held, expressly, that section 3.12(d)(4) is a permissible additional prohibition on eligibility for benefits. See id. at 1341. Mrs. Grounds does not challenge the validity of section 3.12(d)(4), see Appellant’s Brief at 5 (“Mrs. Grounds’s appeal is not a challenge to the validity of the Secretary’s regulation at 38 C.F.R. § 3.12(d).”); see also Oral Arg. at 13:7-14 (“I’m not challenging the validity of the regulation.”), and we are bound to follow Garvey. Accordingly, the Board did not err in finding Mr. Grounds ineligible for benefits pursuant to section 3.12(d)(4).”  Id. at *5.

The Court further explained: “An additional reason Mr. Grounds is not eligible is that he does not meet the statutory definition of “veteran” for benefits purposes. As we observed in Garvey, 972 F.3d at 1334, “[a] former servicemember is ineligible for benefits unless he or she is a ‘veteran’ as defined in 38 U.S.C. § 101(2).” “To be a ‘veteran’ under section 101(2), a former servicemember must have been discharged ‘under conditions other than dishonorable.’” Id. (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 101(2)). Mr. Grounds, however, was not discharged “under conditions other than dishonorable,” because section 3.12(d)(4) provides that “[a] discharge or release because of . . . [w]illful and persistent misconduct” is a discharge under “dishonorable conditions.” See also J.A. 36 (showing Mr. Grounds being discharged “[u]nder conditions other than Honorable”).”  Id. at *5.

This decision helps explain the bars to eligibility to VA benefits. 

Decision by Judge Stark and joined by Judges Reyna and Stoll.

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