Citation Nr: 1305276	
Decision Date: 02/13/13    Archive Date: 02/21/13

DOCKET NO.  11-20 597	)	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 (FVEC) Fund.  



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. M. Casula, Counsel 


INTRODUCTION

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2010 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines.  

Please note that this appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2012).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).


FINDING OF FACT

The National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) has certified that the appellant had no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including the recognized guerrillas, in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States.


CONCLUSION OF LAW

The service requirements for eligibility for a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. § 5101(a) (West 2002); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009); 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (2012).  


REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION

I. Duty to Notify and Assist

The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) enhanced VA's duty to notify and assist claimants in substantiating a claim for VA benefits, as codified in pertinent part at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A, 5107, 5126; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.159, 3.326(a).  The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that the statutory and regulatory provisions pertaining to VA's duty to notify and to assist do not apply to a claim if resolution of the claim is based on statutory interpretation, rather than consideration of the factual evidence.  Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001).  As the law is dispositive in the instant claim, the VCAA is not applicable.  

II. Analysis

The appellant seeks compensation from the FVEC Fund under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-5, Section 1002 (enacted February 17, 2009) (to be codified in Title 38 of the United States Code: Veterans' Benefits).  Payments for eligible persons will be either in the amount of $9,000 for non-United States citizens or $15,000 for United States citizens.  The Secretary of VA is to administer the fund consistent with applicable provisions of the Title 38 of the United States Code.

For eligible persons who accept a payment from the FVEC Fund, such payment shall constitute a complete release of any claim against the United States by reason of such service.  However, nothing in the act prohibits a person from receiving any benefit (including health care, survivor, or burial benefits) which the person would have been eligible to receive based on laws in effect as of the day before the date of the enactment of this Act.

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.  American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009).
Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a), 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 if the evidence meets 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 the Department of Veterans Affairs the document is genuine and the information contained in it is accurate.  38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a).

In cases for VA benefits where the requisite veteran status is at issue, the relevant question is whether qualifying service is shown.  Soria v. Brown, 118 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  Where service department certification is required, the service department's decision on the matter is conclusive and binding on VA.  38 C.F.R. § 3.203(c); Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530 (1992).  Thus, if the United States service department does not verify the claimed service, the applicant's only recourse lies within the relevant service department, not with VA.  Soria v. Brown, 118 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1997).  A claimant is not eligible for VA benefits based on Philippine service unless a United States service department documents or certifies his service.  38 C.F.R. § 3.203; Soria v. Brown, supra.

Historically, in March 2009, the appellant filed a claim for entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund.  Therein, the appellant claimed that he was a Filipino World War II veteran, and that he served under the HQ & HQ Service Company, 1st Prov. Regt. 108th Division of Balindong, Lanao del Sur.  In support of his claim, he has submitted numerous documents, to include an Affidavit for Philippine Army Personnel; his Application for Old Age Pension (Veteran) with the Philippine Veterans Affairs Office; a copy of his passbook for a savings account with the Philippine Veterans Bank; a copy of his membership card with the Veterans Federation of the Philippines; and a copy of his postal identity card.  

Thereafter, the RO submitted to the National Personnel Record Center (NPRC) a request for verification of the appellant's service (VA Form 21-3101(JF)), requesting the NPRC to furnish complete AGUZ Form 632 and furnish all extracts of Form 23 executed prior, and subsequent, to 06-30-1946.  The RO noted that the subject individual was "not listed in the Reconstructed Recognized Guerrilla Roster (RRGR) maintained in VARO Manila."  In May 2010, the NPRC responded stating that the, "Subject has no service as a member of the Philippine Commonwealth Army, including the recognized guerrillas, in the service of the United States Armed Forces." 

In May 2010, the RO issued a decision denying the appellant's FVEC claim because he had not shown basic eligibility.

After reviewing this claim and the record, the Board concludes that entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund is not warranted because the appellant does not have qualifying military service as a matter of law.  In this regard, the Board notes that the RO received a negative response from the service department (NPRC) in connection with the appellant's 2009 claim of entitlement to a onetime payment from the FVEC fund.  Moreover, the appellant has not submitted a DD Form 214, a Certification of Release or Discharge from Active Duty, or an original Certificate of Discharge in accordance with 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a)(1).  All of the documents submitted by the appellant fail to satisfy the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 as acceptable proof of service, as they are not official documents of the appropriate United States service department.  As such, those documents may not be accepted by the Board as verification of service for the purpose of determining eligibility for VA benefits, including compensation from the FVEC Fund.

The proper course for the appellant, who believes there is a reason to dispute the report of the service department or the content of military records, is to pursue such disagreement with the service department.  See Sarmiento v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 80, 85 (1994).  Recognition of service by the Philippine Government, although sufficient for entitlement to benefits from that Government, is not sufficient for benefits administered by VA, which is bound to follow the certifications by the service departments with jurisdiction over United States military records.

Based upon the record in this case, 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.  Veteran status is a prerequisite to entitlement to payment from the FVEC fund.  As such, entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund is denied as a matter of law.  Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994).  


ORDER

Entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund is denied.




____________________________________________
THERESA M. CATINO
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals


Department of Veterans Affairs