Citation Nr: 1312150	
Decision Date: 04/12/13    Archive Date: 04/19/13

DOCKET NO.  10-36 998	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines


THE ISSUE

Entitlement to the one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund (FVEC).



ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

D. Havelka, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

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

This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2013).  38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002).


FINDINGS 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 criteria for the one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund have not been met.  38 U.S.C.A. §§ 107 Note, 501(a) (West 2002 & West Supp. 2012); 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

As explained below, the pertinent facts in this case are not in dispute and the law is dispositive.  Consequently, there is no additional evidence that could be obtained to substantiate the claim, and no further action is required to comply with VA's duties to notify and assist.  See Manning v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 534, 542 (2002); VAOPGCPREC 5-2004 (June 23, 2004).

A new one-time benefit is provided for certain Philippine veterans to be paid from the "Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund."  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.  38 U.S.C.A. § 107 Note (West Supp. 2012).

Eligible persons are those 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; and (2) was discharged or released from service described in paragraph (1) under conditions other than dishonorable.  38 U.S.C.A. § 107 Note (West Supp. 2012)

The appellant submitted an affidavit of service as a civilian guerilla in the Commonwealth of the Philippines, Philippine Army.  However, this document does not satisfy the requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 as acceptable proof of service, as it is not an official document of the appropriate United States service department or NPRC.  Accordingly, this document may not be accepted by the Board as verification of service for the purpose of determining eligibility for VA benefits, including the one-time payment from the FVEC.

The appellant did not submit 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).  

The RO submitted the pertinent information to the NPRC for verification.  The NPRC certified of four separate occasions in May 2009, October 2009, November 2010, and November 2011, 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 prior to July 1, 1946.  The NPRC has certified that the appellant had no qualifying service.  This certification is binding on VA such that VA has no authority to change or amend the finding.  See Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 530, 532 (1992).

The proper course for any claimant 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).

Accordingly, the Board concludes that the appellant is not entitled to the one-time payment from the FVEC.


ORDER

Entitlement to the one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund is denied.



____________________________________________
Shane A. Durkin
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Department of Veterans Affairs