Citation Nr: 0331750 Decision Date: 11/17/03 Archive Date: 11/25/03 DOCKET NO. 00-25 357 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manchester, New Hampshire THE ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for joint pain of the shoulders, wrists, and fingers. 2. Entitlement to service connection for fatigue, due to an undiagnosed illness. 3. Entitlement to service connection for memory loss, due to an undiagnosed illness. 4. Whether new and material evidence has been received to reopen a claim for service connection for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Disabled American Veterans WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Ferrandino, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from February 1984 to February 1993. The veteran's service separation record show that he was in receipt of the Southwest Asia Service Medal. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a rating decision from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Manchester, New Hampshire Regional Office (RO). Initially, in this case, the RO handled the issue regarding PTSD on a new and material basis as the issue of entitlement to service connection for PTSD had been previously denied. In an April 2002 rating action and SSOC, service connection for PTSD was addressed on a direct basis, however, the Board is required to make an independent determination as to whether the evidence is new and material. Barnett v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 1 (1995). This matter is further addressed below. Pursuant to the veteran's request a hearing at the RO before a local hearing officer was held in November 2001. The issue of entitlement to service connection for joint pain of the knees had been part of the current appeal, however, by rating action of April 2002, service connection for patellofemoral syndrome of the right and left knees was granted and the issue on appeal was recharacterized as entitlement to service connection for joint pain of the shoulders, elbows, wrists, and fingers due to an undiagnosed illness. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. An April 1994 rating decision denied entitlement to service connection for PTSD. A timely appeal was not filed. 2. Evidence associated with the claims file since the April 1994 rating decision has not been considered previously and is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide whether the veteran is entitled to service connection for PTSD. 3. PTSD is related to the veteran's active duty service. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. Evidence received since the April 1994 RO decision is new and material, and the claim of entitlement to service connection for PTSD is reopened. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5108 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 (2001). 2. PTSD was incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 3.303(f) (2003) REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS During the pendency of this appeal, the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (VCAA), was signed into law. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et. seq. (West 2002). To implement the provisions of the law, VA promulgated regulations, including at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.156, 3.159 (2003). These amendments apply to any claim to reopen a finally decided claim received on or after August 29, 2001. As the present appeal was initiated prior to that date, it will be decided under the older version of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156 detailed below. Additionally, in light of the decision to reopen this claim and grant service connection for PTSD, the Board finds that the duty to assist and to notify the veteran pursuant to the VCAA as to the new and material issue is satisfied. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A (West 2002). It is noted in the VCAA that, with respect to previously disallowed claims, "[n]othing in (38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A) shall be construed to require the Secretary to reopen a claim that has been disallowed except when new and material evidence is presented or secured, as described in (38 U.S.C.A. § 5108)." 38 U.S.C.A. § 5103A(f) (West 2002). Therefore, the recent change to the law has not modified the requirement that a previously denied claim may not be reopened and readjudicated unless, and until, there has been a finding that new and material evidence has been submitted. Thus, it is necessary that the case be adjudicated initially on the issue of whether new and material evidence is of record to reopen the claim. If such evidence has been presented, the claim will be reopened, any required development would be undertaken. Elkins v. West, 12 Vet. App. 209 (1999). A decision by the RO shall be final and binding on all field offices of the Department of Veterans Affairs as to conclusions based on the evidence on file at the time VA issues written notification of the decision. A final and binding agency decision shall not be subject to revision on the same factual basis except by duly constituted appellate authorities or except where there is clear and unmistakable error in the decision. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.104, 20.1103 (2003). Section 5108 of Title 38 of the United States Code provides that, "[i]f new and material evidence is presented or secured with respect to a claim which has been disallowed, the Secretary shall reopen the claim and review the former disposition of the claim." The regulations provide that new and material evidence means evidence not previously submitted to agency decisionmakers which bears directly and substantially upon the specific matter under consideration, which is neither cumulative nor redundant, and which by itself or in connection with evidence previously assembled is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a) (2001). Current case law provides for the following analysis when a claimant seeks to reopen a final decision based on new and material evidence. First, it must be determined whether new and material evidence has been presented under 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(a). Second, if new and material evidence has been presented, the merits of the claim must be evaluated after ensuring the duty to assist has been fulfilled. See Hodge v. West, 155 F.3d 1356 (Fed. Cir. 1998). The veteran's service medical records show in pertinent part that in May 1984 he was seen with a six month history of sleepwalking. He reported no problem with life changes or status. The assessment was displacement syndrome. In September 1986, the veteran was seen after striking his wife. A pertinent diagnosis was not entered, however, the veteran was told to begin using Antabuse in light of an alcohol abuse problem. In January 1987, the veteran was seen for an alcohol evaluation in light of his admission that he had engaged in fights with his wife after drinking on several occasions. He reported that he had been frustrated in his work, had insomnia, had frequently been yelling in his sleep, and that he had fights with his wife, all related to drinking. The impression was that the veteran was not physically dependent upon alcohol but used alcohol as an escape vehicle and medium to deal with stress. It was recommended that the appellant avoid using alcohol and have intensive counseling for alcohol abuse and marital adjustment. A May 1989 service medical screening form for survival, evade, resist and escape (SERE) training shows that the line for whether the veteran had been seen by a doctor or psychologist in the past three months was unchecked. The veteran reported he was under no emotional strain at present. It was commented that the veteran no longer drank or was dependent, and it was not felt this would be a problem. A psychiatric disorder was not diagnosed at the appellant's February 1993 separation examination. In February 1994, the veteran filed a claim of entitlement to service connection for an anxiety disorder. On VA examination in March 1994, the veteran reported symptoms of anxiety and depression over the past few months. He stated the symptoms increased since his wife left him in November 1993. The veteran reported he had panic attacks in 1989, which started following in-service survival training. During the training, he was "drowned" on a torture board, and since then he had nightmares of the incident. He reported being distressed about the flashbacks and nightmares. The veteran stated that he continued with the survival training since he volunteered to do so. Prior to 1989, he did not have anxiety or panic attacks, but since then he had unusual fears. After examination, it was commented that the veteran by history had symptoms of anxiety, panic disorder, and symptoms suggestive of PTSD. The trauma in his case was the training he had received in the military. The drowning incident had affected his life quite significantly. Although he had PTSD symptomatology, his disability was related to associated anxiety, depression, and psychosocial stressors, particularly regarding his two difficult marriages. The diagnoses were major depression, recurrent, in partial remission; PTSD, delayed, of mild severity; panic disorder, in remission; and history of alcohol use, active. By rating action of April 1994, with notice to the veteran in the same month, service connection for PTSD was denied. The RO determined that the VA examiner accepted the veteran's report regarding the incident in service at face value, and there was no independent verification that the rigorous training actually existed. Evidence included in the claims file subsequent to the April 1994 rating action, includes VA treatment records dating from December 1993 to December 2002 that show treatment for alcohol abuse, PTSD, panic disorder, depression, and anxiety. A record from December 1993 shows the veteran was seen with sleep disorder. He had a history of anxiety attacks for three and one-half weeks. He reported he could not sleep, and was paranoid and edgy. He thought this related to his survival training in service when drowning was simulated. The diagnostic impression was anxiety/depression and question panic. A record from February 1994 shows the veteran reported anxiety and panic attacks. He had survival training in service where he was strapped and tied. A few months later, he started having panic attacks. Stressors were trauma while in a service prisoner of war training, leaving service, break up of marriage, and finding a place in civilian life. The impression was dysthymia, anxiety, panic, and adjustment reaction to civilian life. A VA record from September 1998 notes that the veteran reported that he had experienced panic attacks over the prior 10 years which he believed stemmed from specialized "POW training" in service when he was nearly drowned. He believed that he was going to die and experienced panic attacks and nightmares ever since. He stated he drank to avoid panic attacks. He also described problems with relationships, and wanted to be isolated. A December 1998 record shows that the veteran had PTSD with the traumatic event being well documented in the record. A Vet Center record from November 1998 shows that the veteran reported that in service he volunteered for a survival, evasion, resistance, and escape school in May 1989. He reported being tied, stripped of clothing and beaten. He also reported that a bag was placed over his head, an unloaded gun was placed to his head and the trigger was pulled. With respect to the drowning episode the veteran stated that he was strapped to a table with a cloth over his mouth and was unable to breath and water was poured in his mouth when the cloth was removed and replaced quickly to prevent breathing. He reported experiencing panic attacks one month later and having violent nightmares. The diagnosis was chronic PTSD. At the RO hearing in November 2001, the veteran testified under oath that the stressor that led to the current diagnosis of PTSD was survival training in May 1989, in particular when he underwent water board torture where he was strapped on a board on an incline with his head down. He was not treated for physical residuals after the training. He testified that he started having flashbacks and panic attacks three days afterwards, but did not report them. In response to a request from the veteran sent to people who had been in the SERE program with the veteran, Mr. G. stated that he would like to help concerning the VA claim, however all events that occurred during SERE school were classified and could not be discussed without the service's permission. Mr. D. stated that he attended SERE school in May 1989. He stated he did not know any of his classmates names. He provided descriptions of the class activities, including having a person lay on a bench with a cloth over his face and water being dribbled on the cloth. The additional evidence submitted since the April 1994 RO decision includes the November 2001 hearing testimony from the veteran, describing the alleged in service stressor upon which his diagnosis of PTSD is based. The credibility of new evidence is assumed for the limited purpose of determining whether it is material. Justus v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 510 (1992). Therefore, assuming for the purposes solely of whether the evidence is new and material, that the reported stressor occurred, the veteran's testimony is both new and material in that it has not been considered previously and it is not cumulative of evidence already of record and bears directly and substantially upon the matter under consideration and is so significant that it must be considered in order to fairly decide the merits of the claim. Further, it appears that the RO considered the veteran's testimony to be new and material in reopening the claim in the April 2002 rating decision. Hence, the claim for service connection for PTSD is reopened by new and material evidence. Service connection may be granted for a disorder incurred in service. 38 U.S.C.A. § 1131. Service connection for PTSD requires a diagnosis of PTSD made in accord with the diagnostic criteria of the fourth edition of the American Psychiatric Association's DIAGNOSTIC AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS (DSM-IV), medical evidence linking the disorder to events in service and, unless the veteran engaged in combat with the enemy or was held as a prisoner of war, credible supporting evidence that the claimed in-service stressor events occurred. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.304(f), 4.125 (2003). In this case, the veteran's service medical and personnel records show that he was a member of a Navy Special Boat Unit. A Special Boat Unit (SBU) is an elite Naval combat unit which focuses on the clandestine infiltration and exfiltration of special forces such as Navy SEALS. In light of the dangerous missions assigned to SBUs it is mandatory that unit personnel be thoroughly trained in survival, evasion, resistance and escape methodology. The fact that the veteran underwent this intensive training is confirmed on his DD-214. Further, the undersigned finds that the veteran's description of interrogation techniques used in SERE school to be entirely consistent with Navy special operations training for sailors who were at high risk of becoming a prisoner of war in light of their assigned mission. Simply put, SERE school must be realistic, and the interrogation techniques described by the veteran are employed to add to that realism. It must be noted that the mission of SERE school is to train sailors in employing principles, procedures, techniques and equipment that enhance survival, evasion, resistance and escape prospects, regardless of climatic conditions or hostile environments. The objective of the course is to facilitate each sailor's return to friendly forces without rendering aid or comfort to the enemy and with or without organized rescue and recovery assistance. In light of the fact that the veteran has been diagnosed with PTSD, as the evidence shows that the appellant did experience a verified in-service stressor at SERE school, and as the SERE school experience is the basis for the diagnosis of PTSD, the undersigned finds that service connection for PTSD is in order. ORDER New and material evidence has been submitted to reopen the claim for service connection for PTSD. Service connection for PTSD is granted. REMAND As to the issues of entitlement to service connection for joint pain, shoulders, wrists, and fingers; entitlement to service connection for fatigue; and entitlement to service connection for memory loss, the veteran is claiming that he has these symptoms as a result of his service during the Persian Gulf War. Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 1117 (West 2002) VA may compensate any Persian Gulf War veteran suffering from qualifying chronic disability that became manifest either during active duty in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War, or to a degree of 10 percent or more within a specified presumption period following service in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.317 (2003). In this case, as to the reported joint pain, fatigue complaints, and memory loss complaints, on VA examination in December 1998, the diagnoses were "chronic fatigue syndrome, undiagnosed illness," and "joint and muscle pain, undiagnosed illness." On VA examination in December 2001 as to joint pain, it was noted that the veteran had diagnosed with bilateral carpal tunnel syndrome but no pertinent diagnosis was offered following examination. Following VA examination in January 2001, the examiner found that the veteran did not meet all the requirements for chronic fatigue syndrome, however, the diagnosis was fatigue syndrome undiagnosed illness. The veteran reported memory loss at an October 1998 Persian Gulf Registry examination, and at the RO hearing in November 2001, he reported that his memory loss has been attributed to his PTSD. Therefore, in light of the varied classifications of the veteran's reported symptoms, new VA examinations should be provided to ascertain the nature and etiology of any reported joint pains, fatigue, and memory loss. The record also includes a July 1999 letter from Disability Determination Services indicating that the veteran applied for disability benefits and information was needed from VA. There is no indication in the record whether the veteran is in receipt of Social Security Administration (SSA) disability benefits, however, as part of the remand and to fully assist the veteran in the development of his claim, he should be contacted to determine whether he was granted SSA disability benefits. If so, a copy of the SSA decision granting benefits to the veteran and the medical records upon which it was based should be obtained. Murincsak v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 363 (1992). Finally, as noted above, during the pendency of this appeal, the Veterans Claim Assistance Act of 2000, Pub. L. No. 106- 475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (VCAA), was signed into law. 38 U.S.C.A. § 5100 et. seq. (West 2002). Therefore, to fully comply with the VCAA, on remand, the RO must assure that the provisions of this new Act are complied with, including the notification requirement set forth in the new law. See Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002). To date this has yet to be accomplished. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED to the RO for the following: 1. The RO should send a letter to the veteran and his representative informing them of the pertinent provisions of the VCAA. Specifically, the veteran must be notified what evidence is needed to substantiate each of his claims, what portion of that evidence must be submitted by the appellant, and what portion of that evidence VA will secure on his behalf. The RO must provide notice that satisfies the holdings in Quartuccio, the U.S. Code provisions and any other applicable legal precedents. 2. The RO should contact the veteran and determine whether he has been granted SSA disability benefits. If benefits have been granted, the RO must contact SSA and obtain legible copies of the award decision and all medical records upon which the decision was based. All records must be associated with the claims folder. 3. The veteran should be afforded appropriate VA examination(s) regarding the claim of entitlement to service connection for joint pain, fatigue, and memory loss. The claims folder must be made available to and be reviewed by the examiner(s). The examiner(s) should note and detail all reported complaints and indicate time lost from work due to joint pain, fatigue, and memory loss. The examiner(s) should provide details about the onset, frequency, duration, and severity of all complaints and indicate what precipitates and what relieves the complaints. The examiner(s) should determine if there are any objective medical indications that the veteran experiences each disability at issue. The examiner must specifically determine whether the veteran's complaint is attributable to a known diagnostic entity. If not, the examiner should specifically state whether he/she is unable to ascribe a diagnosis to the complaint. For those conditions for which there is objective evidence of chronic disability from an undiagnosed illness or objective evidence of medically unexplained chronic multisymptom illness such as chronic fatigue syndrome, the examiner(s) must opine: (a) Whether it is at least as likely as not that such illness was incurred during active service in the Southwest Asia Theatre of operations during the Gulf War? (b) Whether it is at least as likely as not that such illness was caused by a supervening diagnosable condition, or event that occurred between the veteran's most recent departure from active duty in the Southwest Asia theater of operations during the Persian Gulf War and the onset of the illness? If known diagnoses are present, the examiner(s) should opine whether it is at least as likely as not that the diagnosed disability had its onset in service. The underlined standard of proof should be utilized in formulating a response. All opinions expressed should be supported by reference to pertinent evidence. If the examiner(s) disagrees with any opinions contained in the claims file which contradict his or hers, the reasons for the disagreement must be set forth in detail. 4. After completion of the requested development, the RO should review the veteran's claims on the basis of all the evidence of record. If any action taken remains adverse to the veteran in any way, he and his representative should be furnished an appropriate supplemental statement of the case. This should additionally include consideration and a discussion of 38 C.F.R. § 3.655 if the veteran fails to appear for a scheduled examination. Should the appellant fail to report for a VA examination the RO should include a copy of the notification letter in the claims file as to the date the examination was scheduled and the address to which notification was sent. If the letter is not available, personnel at the medical center should certify to what address the letter was sent, and should certify that it was not returned as undeliverable. Any SSOC issued must include a discussion of all evidence received since the last statement of the case was issued. The veteran and his representative should then be afforded an opportunity to respond. Thereafter, the case should be returned to the Board, to the extent such action is in order. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded to the regional office. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). ______________________________________________ DEREK R. BROWN Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs YOUR RIGHTS TO APPEAL OUR DECISION The attached decision by the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA or Board) is the final decision for all issues addressed in the "Order" section of the decision. The Board may also choose to remand an issue or issues to the local VA office for additional development. If the Board did this in your case, then a "Remand" section follows the "Order." However, you cannot appeal an issue remanded to the local VA office because a remand is not a final decision. The advice below on how to appeal a claim applies only to issues that were allowed, denied, or dismissed in the "Order." If you are satisfied with the outcome of your appeal, you do not need to do anything. We will return your file to your local VA office to implement the BVA's decision. However, if you are not satisfied with the Board's decision on any or all of the issues allowed, denied, or dismissed, you have the following options, which are listed in no particular order of importance: ? Appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) ? File with the Board a motion for reconsideration of this decision ? File with the Board a motion to vacate this decision ? File with the Board a motion for revision of this decision based on clear and unmistakable error. Although it would not affect this BVA decision, you may choose to also: ? Reopen your claim at the local VA office by submitting new and material evidence. There is no time limit for filing a motion for reconsideration, a motion to vacate, or a motion for revision based on clear and unmistakable error with the Board, or a claim to reopen at the local VA office. None of these things is mutually exclusive - you can do all five things at the same time if you wish. However, if you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court and a motion with the Board at the same time, this may delay your case because of jurisdictional conflicts. If you file a Notice of Appeal with the Court before you file a motion with the BVA, the BVA will not be able to consider your motion without the Court's permission. How long do I have to start my appeal to the Court? You have 120 days from the date this decision was mailed to you (as shown on the first page of this decision) to file a Notice of Appeal with the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. If you also want to file a motion for reconsideration or a motion to vacate, you will still have time to appeal to the Court. As long as you file your motion(s) with the Board within 120 days of the date this decision was mailed to you, you will then have another 120 days from the date the BVA decides the motion for reconsideration or the motion to vacate to appeal to the Court. You should know that even if you have a representative, as discussed below, it is your responsibility to make sure that your appeal to Court is filed on time. How do I appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims? Send your Notice of Appeal to the Court at: Clerk, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims 625 Indiana Avenue, NW, Suite 900 Washington, DC 20004-2950 You can get information about the Notice of Appeal, the procedure for filing a Notice of Appeal, the filing fee (or a motion to waive the filing fee if payment would cause financial hardship), and other matters covered by the Court's rules directly from the Court. You can also get this information from the Court's web site on the Internet at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov, and you can download forms directly from that website. The Court's facsimile number is (202) 501-5848. To ensure full protection of your right of appeal to the Court, you must file your Notice of Appeal with the Court, not with the Board, or any other VA office. How do I file a motion for reconsideration? You can file a motion asking the BVA to reconsider any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why you believe that the BVA committed an obvious error of fact or law in this decision, or stating that new and material military service records have been discovered that apply to your appeal. If the BVA has decided more than one issue, be sure to tell us which issue(s) you want reconsidered. Send your letter to: Director, Management and Administration (014) Board of Veterans' Appeals 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 VA FORM JUN 2003 (RS) 4597 Page 1 CONTINUED Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion for reconsideration, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision. How do I file a motion to vacate? You can file a motion asking the BVA to vacate any part of this decision by writing a letter to the BVA stating why you believe you were denied due process of law during your appeal. For example, you were denied your right to representation through action or inaction by VA personnel, you were not provided a Statement of the Case or Supplemental Statement of the Case, or you did not get a personal hearing that you requested. You can also file a motion to vacate any part of this decision on the basis that the Board allowed benefits based on false or fraudulent evidence. Send this motion to the address above for the Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a motion to vacate, and you can do this at any time. However, if you also plan to appeal this decision to the Court, you must file your motion within 120 days from the date of this decision. How do I file a motion to revise the Board's decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error? You can file a motion asking that the Board revise this decision if you believe that the decision is based on "clear and unmistakable error" (CUE). Send this motion to the address above for the Director, Management and Administration, at the Board. You should be careful when preparing such a motion because it must meet specific requirements, and the Board will not review a final decision on this basis more than once. You should carefully review the Board's Rules of Practice on CUE, 38 C.F.R. 20.1400 -- 20.1411, and seek help from a qualified representative before filing such a motion. See discussion on representation below. Remember, the Board places no time limit on filing a CUE review motion, and you can do this at any time. How do I reopen my claim? You can ask your local VA office to reopen your claim by simply sending them a statement indicating that you want to reopen your claim. However, to be successful in reopening your claim, you must submit new and material evidence to that office. See 38 C.F.R. 3.156(a). Can someone represent me in my appeal? Yes. You can always represent yourself in any claim before VA, including the BVA, but you can also appoint someone to represent you. An accredited representative of a recognized service organization may represent you free of charge. VA approves these organizations to help veterans, service members, and dependents prepare their claims and present them to VA. An accredited representative works for the service organization and knows how to prepare and present claims. You can find a listing of these organizations on the Internet at: www.va.gov/vso. You can also choose to be represented by a private attorney or by an "agent." (An agent is a person who is not a lawyer, but is specially accredited by VA.) If you want someone to represent you before the Court, rather than before VA, then you can get information on how to do so by writing directly to the Court. Upon request, the Court will provide you with a state-by-state listing of persons admitted to practice before the Court who have indicated their availability to represent appellants. This information is also provided on the Court's website at www.vetapp.uscourts.gov. Do I have to pay an attorney or agent to represent me? Except for a claim involving a home or small business VA loan under Chapter 37 of title 38, United States Code, attorneys or agents cannot charge you a fee or accept payment for services they provide before the date BVA makes a final decision on your appeal. If you hire an attorney or accredited agent within 1 year of a final BVA decision, then the attorney or agent is allowed to charge you a fee for representing you before VA in most situations. An attorney can also charge you for representing you before the Court. VA cannot pay fees of attorneys or agents. Fee for VA home and small business loan cases: An attorney or agent may charge you a reasonable fee for services involving a VA home loan or small business loan. For more information, read section 5904, title 38, United States Code. In all cases, a copy of any fee agreement between you and an attorney or accredited agent must be sent to: Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman (012) Board of Veterans' Appeals 810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420 The Board may decide, on its own, to review a fee agreement for reasonableness, or you or your attorney or agent can file a motion asking the Board to do so. Send such a motion to the address above for the Office of the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman at the Board. VA FORM JUN 2003 (RS) 4597 Page 2