Citation Nr: 1317767 Decision Date: 05/31/13 Archive Date: 06/06/13 DOCKET NO. 11-02 882 ) 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. WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant and Son-in-Law ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD David S. Ames, Counsel INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines (RO). This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2011). 38 U.S.C.A. § 7107(a)(2) (West 2002). The appeal is REMANDED to the RO via the Appeals Management Center in Washington, D.C. REMAND The appellant seeks entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund. The appellant's claim turns on whether he has qualifying military service. An eligible person is any person who 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 § 14 of the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 538); and was discharged or released from service under conditions other than dishonorable. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (February 17, 2009). 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) (2011), 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 with 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 the claimed service. 38 C.F.R. § 3.203 (2011); Soria v. Brown, 118 F.3d 747 (Fed. Cir. 1997). In this case, in a timely April 2009 claim, the appellant provided some identifying information, including his name, date and place of birth, service number, unit, and dates of service. The RO requested verification of service by the applicable United States service department using multiple spellings of the appellant's full name, place, date of birth, service number, dates of service, and unit designations provided by the appellant in his supporting documents. In December 2009, September 2010, and March 2012, the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) responded 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. Consequently, the RO determined that the appellant did not have the requisite service to establish eligibility for payment from the FVEC Fund and, thus, denied his claim. However, subsequent to the NPRC responses and certification of the appeal to the Board by the RO, the appellant submitted documents stating that he had been discharged from Replacement and Casual Brigade, USAFIPAC, effective February 9, 1946. That unit designation and date of separation are different from those listed in documents previously submitted by the Veteran. There is no evidence of record that verification of the appellant's service with that unit designation and separation date has ever been attempted. Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following actions: This appeal has been advanced on the Board's docket pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 20.900(c) (2011). Expedited handling is requested. 1. Request verification of the appellant's service from the applicable United States service department using all identifying information currently of record for the appellant, to specifically include the unit designation of Replacement and Casual Brigade, USAFIPAC, and the separation date of February 9, 1946. 2. Then, readjudicate the claim. If the decision is adverse to the appellant, issue a supplemental statement of the case and allow the applicable time for response. Then, return the case to the Board. The appellant has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded. Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999). This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment. The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board or the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West Supp. 2012). _________________________________________________ Harvey P. Roberts Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2002), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2012).