Citation Nr: 0425680 Decision Date: 09/17/04 Archive Date: 09/23/04 DOCKET NO. 96-19 803 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in New York, New York THE ISSUE Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 12, 1993, for an award of pension benefits based upon non-service-connected disabilities. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: New York State Division of Veterans' Affairs WITNESS AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Harold A. Beach, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from April to October 1951. This case was before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) in April 2003, at which time it was remanded so that the veteran could be informed of the VA's duty to assist him in the development of his claim under the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (2000) (now codified as amended at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126 (West 2002)). That Act redefined the obligations of the VA with respect to the duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim and included an enhanced duty to notify him as to the information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A. In June 2004, following the requested development, the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York, confirmed and continued April 12, 1993, as the effective date for assignment of the veteran's pension. Thereafter, the case was returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In January 1983, the Veterans Administration (now the Department of Veterans Affairs, hereinafter VA) Regional Office (RO) in New York, New York, received the veteran's original claim of entitlement to a permanent and total rating for pension purposes (pension). 2. The veteran did not respond to the RO's requests for information, dated in February, March, and May 1983. 3. On April 12, 1993, the RO received the veteran's claim of entitlement to pension. 4. In a July 1995 rating decision, the RO granted entitlement to pension, effective April 12, 1993. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date prior to April 12, 1993, for entitlement to pension have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159 (2003). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION I. Duty to Assist As noted above, the VCAA redefined the obligations of the VA with respect to the duty to assist and included an enhanced duty to notify a claimant as to the information and evidence necessary to substantiate a claim for VA benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A. In particular, the VA had to ensure that the veteran has been notified of the following: (1) the information and evidence not of record that is necessary to substantiate each of his specific claims; (2) the information and evidence that VA will seek to provide; (3) the information and evidence that the veteran is expected to provide; and (4) the need to furnish the VA any evidence in his possession that pertains to any of his claims, i.e., something to the effect that he should give the VA everything he has pertaining to his claims. In August 2001, the VA published final rules implementing the VCAA. 66 Fed. Reg. 45620 (August 29, 2001) (codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156, 3.159, and 3.326(a) (2003)). In a June 2004 letter, the RO notified the veteran of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate his claim of entitlement to an effective date prior to April 12, 1993, for an award of VA pension benefits. The VA further notified the veteran that in order to support his claim, he would need to furnish enough information so that the RO could identify and locate any records relevant to his claim. The RO stated that it would need to know the name and full address of the person, agency, or company who had records relevant to his claim; the approximate time frame covered by the records; and in the case of medical records, the condition for which he was treated. The RO further informed the veteran that it was responsible for getting relevant records from any Federal agency, such as military records; records from VA hospitals or private facilities where VA had authorized treatment; or records from the Social Security Administration. The RO notified the veteran and that it would also make reasonable efforts to get relevant records not held by a Federal agency, such as records from state and local governments, private doctors and hospitals, or current or former employers. The RO emphasized, however, that it was the veteran's responsibility to make sure that it received all requested records that were not in the possession of a Federal department or agency. Finally, the RO enclosed the text of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159. That text further informed the veteran of what evidence and information VA would obtain for him, with specific references to such materials as government reports and medical records. The RO noted that it had obtained the following evidence: 1) A claim for benefits, which was received on January 28, 1983; 2) Letters sent to the veteran on February 7, March 16, March 23, and May 23, 1983, requesting evidence in support of his January 1983 claim; 3) The veteran's reopened claim for benefits, received on April 12, 1983; The VA set forth the place and time frames for the veteran to submit additional information or evidence, as well as the potential consequences for failing to do so. The VA also notified him of what to do if he had questions or needed assistance and provided a telephone number and computer site where he could get additional information. In addition to the June 2004 letter, the Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), issued that same month, notified the veteran and his representative of the evidence necessary to substantiate his claim of entitlement to an effective dated prior to April 12, 1993 for an award of VA pension benefits. Indeed, the SSOC also set forth the text of 38 C.F.R. § 3.159, the regulation issued by the VA to implement the VCAA. In addition to that noted above, the following evidence has been received in support of the veteran's appeal for an earlier effective date for his pension: verification of the veteran's service; a card showing that the veteran had been scheduled for a July 1975 appointment with the Surgical Service at the VA hospital in New York; a March 1983 statement that the veteran's service records had been destroyed in a 1973 fire at the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC); a March 1983 statement from the New York Hospital that it had no records on the veteran from 1983 and that the only records on the veteran were on micro-film; verification of his service; examinations performed by the VA in March 1983 and May 1995; correspondence from the Social Security Administration that the veteran's application for Supplemental Security Income was denied in March 1983 but was approved after he reapplied in March 1987; and the transcript of the veteran's May 1998 hearing at the RO;. After reviewing the record, the Board finds that the RO has met its duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. In fact, it appears that all relevant evidence identified by the veteran has been obtained and associated with the claims folder. In this regard, it should be noted that he has not identified any outstanding evidence (which has not been sought by the VA) which could be used to support the issue of entitlement to an effective date prior to April 12, 1993, for his pension. In fact, in a June 2004 letter, the veteran stated that he had no additional evidence to submit in support of his appeal. As such, there is no reasonable possibility that further development would unearth any additional relevant evidence with respect to those issues. Indeed, such development would serve no useful purpose and, therefore, need not be performed in order to meet the VA's statutory duty to assist the veteran in the development of his claim. See Soyini v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 540, 546 (1991) (strict adherence to requirements in the law does not dictate an unquestioning, blind adherence in the face of overwhelming evidence in support of the result in a particular case; such adherence would result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the appellant); Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994) (remands that would only result in unnecessarily imposing additional burdens on VA with no benefit flowing to the appellant are to be avoided). In light of the foregoing, there is no threat of harm or prejudice to the appellant due to a failure to assist him in the development of his claim of entitlement to an effective date earlier than April 12, 1993, for pension. Therefore, the Board will proceed to the merits of the appeal. II. Facts and Analysis In January 1983, the RO received the veteran's original claim of entitlement to a permanent and total disability rating for VA pension purposes (VA Form 21-526). Among other things, the RO had to determine whether the veteran had the requisite service to qualify for such benefits. 38 U.S.C.A. § 101(9), (11), 1521(a), (j); 38 C.F.R. §3.3(a)(3). In February, March, and May 1983, the VA variously requested that the veteran furnish medical evidence to support his claim, as well as information and/or evidence which would verify or assist the VA in verifying his service. The veteran did not respond to those requests. In February 1983, the RO contacted a Dr. W. and requested records of the veteran's treatment for a nervous condition. Dr. W. did not respond to that request. That month, the RO also contacted the New York Hospital and requested records reflecting the veteran's treatment in 1983 for a nervous condition. The New York Hospital reported that it had no records for the veteran in 1983. It did note, however, that the only records it had for the veteran were on microfilm. The New York Hospital further noted that if the VA would like a copy of the microfilm, it should so state in return correspondence. In March and May 1983, the RO requested that the National Personnel Records (NPRC) verify the veteran's service (VA Forms 00-3101-3 and 07-3101). The NPRC replied, however, that the veteran's records had been destroyed in a fire at that facility in July 1973. The requests, dated in February, March, and May 1983, were sent to the veteran at his last-reported address. The veteran does not assert that he failed to receive those requests. Rather, he maintains that he sent his responses to the National Personnel Records Center in St. Louis, Missouri. There is no competent evidence on file, however, to support that contention. Indeed, the requests sent to the veteran clearly instructed him to respond to the VA. Generally, where evidence requested in connection with an original claim was not furnished within 1 year after the date of request, the claim was considered abandoned. 38 C.F.R. § 3.158. In such cases, the VA took no further unless a new claim was received. Id. On April 12, 1993, the RO received another claim from the veteran seeking entitlement to pension. In a July 1995 rating decision, the RO granted that claim, effective April 12, 1993. The veteran disagreed with that effective date, and this appeal ensued. In May 1998, during his hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge, the veteran testified that when he initially filed his claim for pension in 1983, he was missing a great deal of time from work. He also testified that he had had no difficulty receiving treatment at VA medical centers. He stated that he stopped pursuing his case, because the VA refused to believe he was a veteran. He noted, however, that he had never withdrawn his claim, nor had he ever been notified by the VA that his claim was not going forward. Moreover, he stated that he had not been advised of his appellate rights. In essence, he maintained that his claim had remained open until pension was ultimately awarded in July 1995. Thus, he concluded that the effective date of his pension should go back to January 1983, the date of his original claim. The veteran essentially raises a Due Process Clause argument that he was never notified that his 1983 claim was subject to abandonment pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a). However, abandonment pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a) cannot be set aside or waived on grounds of alleged ignorance of regulatory requirements. Morris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 260, 265 (1991). Everyone dealing with the Government is charged with knowledge of federal statutes and lawfully promulgated agency regulations. Morris, 1 Vet. App. at 265 (citing Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85 (1947)). Thus, ignorance of the law is irrelevant. Id. Therefore, even though he may have been ignorant of the abandonment provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.158(a), the veteran is necessarily charged with knowledge of the regulation. The veteran's contentions also place him in the anomalous position of seeking to benefit from his lack of activity in pursuing his initial claim of pension benefits. In effect he is saying that the VA failed to continue to assist him in the development of his claim, despite his lack of response to the VA's requests for information. The duty to assist, however, is not a one-way street. Olsen v. Principi, 3 Vet. App. 480 (1992). Rather, the VA's duty is just what it states, a duty to assist, not a duty to prove a claim with the claimant only in a passive role. If a veteran wants help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence. Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 406 (1991). Therefore, when he failed to reply to the VA's requests for information in February, March, and May 1983, he effectively abandoned his claim. In this regard, the Board notes that between May 1983 and April 12, 1993, the claims folder is completely negative for any activity involving the claim. Although the new claim, which was received on April 12, 1993, was ultimately granted, controlling VA regulations clearly state that such award may not commence earlier than the date of filing of the new claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.158. Therefore, the veteran was not entitled to receive VA pension benefits until April 12, 1993. Despite his failure to properly respond to the various requests for information, the veteran asserts that he was, nevertheless, entitled to formal adjudication and notice of his 1983 claim. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.103, 14.688 (1982); VA's Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 (M21-1), Paragraphs 7.01(b), 16.03, 16.08. Although 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(e) required that the claimant be notified of any decision affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief, the Board notes that the RO made no decision in this case in 1983. The case merely lapsed and was disallowed for administrative purposes due to the veteran's failure to prosecute the claim. The Board also notes that 38 C.F.R. § 14.668 applied to Legal Services, General Counsel and to claims by VA personnel for damage to or loss of personal property incident to such person's service to the VA. It does not apply to cases where the veteran has abandoned his claim for pension. Accordingly, those regulations are of no force or effect in the instant appeal. As to the veteran's citation to M21-1 and DVB Circ. 21-83-5 (Chg. 1, June 1, 1983), the Board notes that in 1983, such publications set forth procedural guidelines for the development and adjudication of cases. Then, as now, the RO was not required to follow such guidelines in its decisions. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.2, 19.103 (1983) (now 19.5 (2003)). There is an exception in that the Court may find guidelines substantive in nature and thus binding on the VA. See, e.g., Cohen v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 128, 139 (1997). In this case, however, the Court has not ruled on whether the portions of M21-1 cited by the veteran are substantive in nature. As noted in the Introduction above, the Stuckey case was supposed to have provided guidance in that area; however that case has been withdrawn. Absent such guidance, the Board will proceed in accordance with the regulation. Therefore, the Board is not bound by the procedural guidelines cited by the veteran. Even if the procedural guidelines in effect in 1983 were found to be substantive in nature, however, they would not provide a basis for an effective date earlier than April 12, 1993, for the veteran's pension benefits. In 1983, the procedural guidelines stated if evidence essential to adjudication of the claim were not received within the control period, the claim was to be administratively disallowed for failure to prosecute, i.e. a disallowance for record purposes only. VA's Adjudication Procedure Manual M21-1 (M21-1), Para. 7.01(b) (Chg. 262, March 7, 1980), 16.03(a) (Chg. 275, July 17, 1980). Further, the guidelines stated that disallowances for failure to prosecute were to be accomplished without notice to the claimant. M21-1, Para. 7.01(b) (Chg. 262, March 7, 1980), 16.02(a)(2) (Chg. 323, January 25, 1982). While M21-1, Para. 16.08 (Chg. 275, July 17, 1980) provided for notification of decisions/disallowance letters, such notices/letters were limited to those cases where there had been a decision affecting the payment of benefits (emphasis added) or determination of non-entitlement (emphasis added). In this case, there was no such determination. Again, in 1983, the RO did not even reach the merits of the claim. The veteran also contends that in 1983, the RO violated the procedural guidelines for developing claims. M21-1, Para. 6.04 (Chg. 321, January 8, 1982; Chg. 331, June 21, 1982); M21-1 Para. 6.06 (Chg. 340, November 26, 1982); DVB Circ. 21- 83-5 (Chg. 1, June 1, 1983). In particular, he contends that the RO did not make every effort to obtain sufficient evidence from alternate or collateral sources with respect to claims in which the veteran's records were destroyed in the 1973 fire. He notes that the RO should have continued follow-up procedures until the requested records were received or until a final reply was received stating that the records could not be located. DVB Circ. 21-83-5. He states that by its inaction, the RO effectively allowed his the relevant time periods to lapse which in turn resulted in the disallowance of his claim. In this regard, he contends the information that the RO used in the mid-1990's to verify his service were essentially the same as that which was available in 1983. He notes that the only difference was in the steps taken to develop the claim. Therefore, he concludes that had the RO exerted the same efforts to develop his claim in 1983 that it exerted in 1993, the claim would have been approved on the earlier occasion. Accordingly, he maintains that the earlier effective date would then have been warranted. Although the veteran is undoubtedly sincere in his beliefs, the record simply does not support his theory of the case. Not only did the RO send the appropriate requests to the NPRC following his 1983 claim, it made multiple requests to the veteran for such information. The RO discontinued follow-up procedures only after the NPRC reported that the requested information could not be located and after the veteran failed to respond to the requests sent to him. Moreover, unlike 1983, the veteran did respond to requests for information in conjunction with the claim he filed in April 1993. For example, in June and September 1993, he responded to a questionnaire about his military service (NA Form 13075). He also furnished the RO with a copy of his National Service Life Insurance policy; a report from the City of New York, Department of Probation, and copies of information on file with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, including his fingerprints. Thus, it cannot be said that the information used by the RO in the mid-1990's to verify his service were essentially the same as that which was available in 1983. The alleged difference in the level of development of the two claims was rooted in the veteran's responsiveness and the RO's ability to develop the claims in light of his responses. Finally, the veteran suggests that the only reason he was not awarded VA pension in 1983 was associated with the VA's inability to verify his active service dates. A review of the record as it was in 1983, however, discloses no evidence that he was permanently and totally disabled. Indeed, despite diagnoses of chronic bronchitis and dorsal kyphoscoliosis during a VA examination in March 1983, there were no findings that such disabilities rendered the veteran unemployable. Moreover, during his hearing in October 1998, he acknowledged that other state and federal agencies had denied similar claims which he had filed at that time (Transcript at 3). In this regard, the evidence shows that in March 1983, the veteran was notified by the Social Security Administration that he had been turned down for Supplemental Security Income payments because he had not met the disability requirements. In light of the foregoing, the Board concludes that in 1983, the veteran failed to prosecute his claim for a permanent and total disability rating for pension purposes. Under such circumstances, VA regulations are clear. If the claim for pension is later awarded, the effective date can be no earlier than the date the new claim is filed. In this case, the new claim was filed on April 12, 1983, the currently assigned effective date. Accordingly, that date is confirmed and continued. In arriving at this decision, the Board has considered the potential applicability of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) (2003) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(2) (2003). However, those regulations are applicable only when the veteran attempts to reopen a claim following a denial which has become final. In this case, there was no such denial. As noted above, prior to April 1993, the VA did not adjudicate the question of whether the veteran was entitled to VA pension benefits. Accordingly, there were no inherent questions of finality; and thus, the provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.156(c) and 38 C.F.R. § 3.400(q)(2) are of no force or effect. ORDER Entitlement to an effective date prior to April 12, 1993, for the veteran's award of pension is denied. ____________________________________________ G. H. SHUFELT 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