Citation Nr: 1030662 Decision Date: 08/16/10 Archive Date: 08/24/10 DOCKET NO. 10-20 748 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines THE ISSUE Entitlement to a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Prem, Counsel INTRODUCTION The appellant claims to have active duty service from April 1943 to February 1945. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2009 determination by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). A notice of disagreement was received in October 2009, a statement of the case was issued in April 2010, and a substantive appeal was received in May 2010. Please note this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2009). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). FINDINGS OF FACT The appellant is not an eligible person for purposes of entitlement to payment from the "Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund." CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to a one-time payment from the "Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund" have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 101, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1, 3.40, 3.41, 3.203 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) codified in part at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A, and implemented in part at 38 C.F.R § 3.159, amended VA's duties to notify and to assist a claimant in developing information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim. VA's duties to assist and notify have been considered in this case. However, as it is the law, and not the facts, that are dispositive of the appeal, the duties to notify and assist imposed by the VCAA are not applicable to this claim. See Mason v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 129, 132 (2002). The enactment of the VCAA does not affect matters on appeal from the Board when the question is limited to statutory interpretation. See Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001). Because qualifying service and how it may be established are outlined in statute and regulation, and because service department certifications of service are binding on VA, the Board's review is limited to interpreting the pertinent law and regulations. Analysis Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a one-time benefit is provided for certain Philippine veterans to be paid from the "Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund." American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009). Section 1002 addresses Payments to Eligible Persons Who Served in the United States Armed Forces in the Far East during World War II. Section 1002 (c)(1) provides that the Secretary may make a payment from the compensation fund to an eligible person who, during the one-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act, submits to the Secretary a claim for benefits under this section. Section 1002 (d) provides that an eligible person is any person who--(1) served--(A) before July 1, 1946, in the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, while such forces were in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States pursuant to the military order of the President dated July 26, 1941, including among such military forces organized guerrilla forces under commanders appointed, designated, or subsequently recognized by the Commander in Chief, Southwest Pacific Area, or other competent authority in the Army of the United States; or (B) in the Philippine Scouts under section 14 of the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 538); and (2) was discharged or released from service described in paragraph (1) under conditions other than dishonorable. The appellant contends that he is entitled to VA benefits due to his service during World War II. Specifically, he contends that he was a member of the recognized guerrillas. He does not contend that he was in the Philippine Scouts. He has submitted a September 1986 certificate from the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office that certifies that the appellant was a Veteran of World War II/Philippine Revolution who served with squadron 155, LGAF. He submitted an April 2009 memorandum from the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office certifying that the appellant is receiving Old Age Pension and Educational benefits. For the purpose of establishing entitlement to VA benefits, VA may accept evidence of service submitted by a claimant, such as a DD Form 214, Certificate of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or original Certificate of Discharge, without verification from the appropriate service department under the following conditions: (1) the evidence is a document issued by the service department; (2) the document contains needed information as to length, time and character of service; and (3) in the opinion of VA the document is genuine and the information contained in it is accurate. 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a). The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the Secretary has lawfully promulgated regulations making service department findings "binding on the VA for purposes of establishing service in the U.S. Armed Forces." Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530, 532 (1992). In addition, service department findings are binding on VA for purposes of establishing service in the U.S. Armed Forces. Id. In February 2010, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) certified that the appellant had no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including the recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces. This finding is binding on VA for purposes of establishing service in the United States Armed Forces. Spencer v. West, 13 Vet. App. 376 (2000). Given the applicable statutory and regulatory provisions recited above and the facts of this case, the Board finds that the appellant does not meet the basic eligibility requirements for VA benefits. Thus, the appellant's claim lacks legal entitlement under the applicable provisions. As the law is dispositive, the claim must be denied because of the lack of legal entitlement under the law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 429-30 (1994). The Board notes that the appellant has argued that his status as a Veteran is already a settled matter inasmuch as he is receiving Old Age pension and Education benefits; and the fact that he has been recognized by the Philippine government as a deserving guerrilla. The Board notes that although the Philippine government has recognized the appellant as a deserving guerilla, the U.S. Veterans Administration cannot recognize service without verification from the appropriate service department. ORDER The appeal is denied. ____________________________________________ ALAN S. PEEVY Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs