Lile v. McDonough, Case Number 21-6977, decided April 11, 2024 involves basic entitlement to VA benefits requiring creditable military service.
The veteran enlisted in the Army in September 1979 denying a conviction of any crime, but this was untrue. Ultimately, the Army learned of two convictions and released the veteran due to a fraudulent entry in April 1980. The question was whether his voided enlistment was equivalent to a dishonorable discharge. The Board found discharge for concealment of a conviction by [a] civil court which would have prevented enlistment will be held to be under dishonorable conditions, and therefore a bar to VA benefits. Id. at *2.
This was a novel issue before the Veterans Court, which also had not been addressed by the Federal Circuit. The Court held:
“while VA is bound by a service department's act of voiding an enlistment as well as its determination of the dates of a person's entry and separation, VA must conduct an independent assessment of whether a claimant subject to a voided enlistment is eligible for VA benefits. Specifically, VA must determine benefits eligibility by applying 38 C.F.R. § 3.14, most significantly subsections (a) and (b). If VA determines that a claimant's voided enlistment falls under subsection (b), its work is done because such a claimant is categorically not eligible for benefits under the regulation. In contrast, if VA determines that a claimant's voided enlistment comes within the ambit of subsection (a), then VA must proceed to assess the character of the claimant's service (assuming the service department left the period of service subject to the void enlistment uncharacterized, as should be the norm in a voided enlistment) and whether it bars entitlement to benefits under the appropriate provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.12.”
Id. at *2. The Court noted the Board did not use this legal framework and as a result the decision should be set aside and remanded for a new adjudication by the Board.
The Court noted: “We know that appellant served in the U.S. Army—we know his entrance date, his discharge date, and the facts of his service. The question at issue here … is whether the time appellant indisputably spent in service makes him eligible to receive VA benefits. And as to that question, as we turn to next, there is a directly applicable regulation (38 C.F.R. § 3.14) that instructs VA about how it is to assess the impact of a voided enlistment.” Id. at 8.
The Court then pivoted to explaining Section 3.14 and states: “We conclude that § 3.14 is unambiguous. The regulation opens with the sentence, "service is valid unless enlistment is voided by the service department."62 If the regulation ended there, then entitlement to benefits would turn on whether there was a period of service invalidated by a void enlistment, and VA would be bound by that service department finding to establish eligibility for VA benefits. But the key is that the regulation does not end with that single sentence. Instead, subsections (a)-(d) carve out scenarios in which service can be valid for VA benefits purposes despite a service department voiding a claimant's enlistment.63 The regulation goes on to detail how VA is to assess the impact of a voided enlistment on entitlement to benefits.” Id. at *10.
The Court then explains: “Perhaps most significantly for our resolution of the appeal before us, subsections (a) and (b) make clear that voided enlistments can fall into one of two categories. One category (the one reflected in subsection (b)) is enlistments that are voided for reasons that categorically bar eligibility for benefits. The other category (under subsection (a)) concerns enlistments voided for reasons that do not categorically bar eligibility for VA benefits. While we highlight some of the specific regulatory language below, the central point, as an overall matter, is that VA is charged under § 3.14 with making an independent determination about the effects of a voided enlistment on a claimant's eligibility to obtain benefits—the Agency must determine whether a particular voided enlistment comes under subsection (a) or subsection (b).” Id. at *11.
The Court then remanded to the Board for a new assessment.
Decision by Judge Allen and joined in by the Judges Pietsch and Laurer.
To know more about whether Thomas Andrews can help you, please visit my website.
No comments:
Post a Comment