Citation Nr: 1320574 Decision Date: 06/26/13 Archive Date: 07/05/13 DOCKET NO. 10-31 758 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines THE ISSUE Eligibility for one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) Fund. WITNESSES AT HEARING ON APPEAL Appellant, E. A., & R. M. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. N. Hyland, Senior Counsel INTRODUCTION The Appellant served as a member of the United States Armed Forces Far East (USAFFE) from January 27, 1942 to March 14, 1946 and he had recognized guerrilla service from March 18, 1945 to June 7, 1945. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a May 2009 decision of a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Appellant testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge in February 2013. A transcript of this hearing is included in the claims file. As explained below, the Appellant is found ineligible for a one-time payment from the FVEC based upon a 1977 VA finding that he committed fraud in an attempt to secure VA compensation and thereby forfeited his right to VA benefits, other than insurance. The Appellant has made statements that appear to potentially raise a claim to reopen the forfeiture matter on the merits. However, when informed by the RO in the January 2012 Supplemental Statement of the Case that any claim to reopen a revocation of the forfeiture decision would be addressed as a separate issue, the Appellant did not respond and this issue was not adjudicated by the RO and then appealed by the Appellant. As such, the Board finds that the issue of whether new and material evidence was received to reopen the matter of forfeiture of entitlement to VA benefits is not in appellate status or before the Board at this time. Please note 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). FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Appellant served as a member of the USAFFE from January 27, 1942 to March 14, 1946 and he had recognized guerrilla service from March 18, 1945 to June 7, 1945. 2. In a March 1977 decision, the Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service determined that the Appellant knowingly, intentionally and deliberately made, presented and/or caused to be furnished to the VA, materially false and fraudulent statements and evidence in support of his claim for disability compensation based on service-connected gunshot wounds, thereby forfeiting all VA rights, claims and benefits to which he might otherwise be entitled. CONCLUSION OF LAW The requirements for eligibility to a one-time payment from the FVEC fund are not met. 38 U.S.C.A. § 501(a) (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.203, 3.901 (2012). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA), Pub. L. No. 106-475, 114 Stat. 2096 (Nov. 9, 2000) (codified at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5100, 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5106, 5107, 5126) redefined VA's duty to assist claimants in the development of a claim. VA regulations for the implementation of the VCAA were codified as amended at 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102 , 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). In some cases, however, the VCAA need not be considered because the issue presented is solely one of statutory interpretation and/or the claim is barred as a matter of law. See Smith v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 227, 231-232 (2000), aff'd, 281 F.3d 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2002), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 821 (2002); see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(b)(3)(ii) (VCAA notice not required when, as a matter of law, entitlement to the benefit claimed cannot be established); 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(d)(3) (VA will refrain from or discontinue assistance with regard to a claim requesting a benefit to which the claimant is not entitled as a matter of law). This is such a case. As discussed below, resolution of the Appellant's claim is wholly dependent on interpretation of the applicable laws and regulations pertaining to basic eligibility for VA benefits. The VCAA is therefore inapplicable and need not be considered in this case. See Mason v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 129, 132 (2002); Dela Cruz v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 143, 149 (2001); see also VAOPGCPREC 5-2004 (June 23, 2004). 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 (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. In the instant case, the Board does not need to address whether or not the Appellant meets the specific eligibility requirements for a one-time payment from the FVEC because the Appellant has forfeited his right to VA benefits. VA law states that any person who knowingly makes or causes to be made, or conspires, combines, aids, or assists in, agrees to, arranges for, or in any way procures the making or presentation of a false or fraudulent affidavit, declaration, certificate, statement, voucher, or paper, concerning any claim for benefits under any of the laws administered by the Secretary, shall forfeit all rights, claims, and benefits under all laws administered by the Secretary (except laws relating to insurance benefits). 38 U.S.C.A. § 6103(a);38 C.F.R. § 3.901(a). The record reflects that in March 1977, the Director of VA's Compensation and Pension Service determined that the Appellant had furnished VA with materially false and fraudulent evidence and statements concerning a claim for VA disability compensation, thereby forfeiting all rights, claims and benefits under all laws administered by the VA Secretary to which the Appellant might otherwise be entitled. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act provides that the VA Secretary may make a payment from the FVEC fund to an eligible person who submits to the VA Secretary a claim for benefits under this section. See American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009). Thus, it is clear that the FVEC fund is "administered" by VA. Accordingly, the Board finds that based on the 1977 finding of Appellant's forfeiture of all rights under all laws administered by the VA Secretary, the Appellant does not legally qualify for a one-time payment from the FVEC fund. In summary, the Board finds that the Appellant cannot collect VA benefits as a matter of law. Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426 (1994). Therefore, the claim must be denied as a matter of law. ORDER Eligibility for one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund is denied. ____________________________________________ C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs