Citation Nr: 1323562 Decision Date: 07/24/13 Archive Date: 08/01/13 DOCKET NO. 13-10 645 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines THE ISSUE Legal entitlement to a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) Fund. ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Thomas D. Jones, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran, who is the appellant, served on active duty from September 1942 to May 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2010 rating decision of a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) in Manila, the Republic of the Philippines. 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 National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) has certified that the Veteran had requisite qualifying service in the service of the Armed Forces of the United States. 2. The appellant has submitted evidence establishing his identity as a veteran with requisite qualifying service for the award of a FVEC one-time payment. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Veteran has established his eligibility for the purpose of obtaining a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation Fund. 38 U.S.C.A. § 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 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Duties to Notify and Assist The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) enhanced VA's duties to notify and assist claimants in substantiating their claims for VA benefits, as codified in pertinent part at 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5103, 5103A (West 2002 & Supp. 2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.159, 3.326(a) (2012). With respect to the Veteran's claim decided herein, VA has met all statutory and regulatory notice and duty to assist provisions. To the extent there may be any deficiency of notice or assistance, there is no prejudice to the appellant in proceeding with the issue on appeal given the favorable nature of the Board's decision with regard to the pending claim. Eligibility for FVEC One-Time Payment The appellant seeks a one-time payment from the Filipino Veterans Equity Compensation (FVEC) Fund. Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, a one-time benefit is provided for certain Philippine veterans to be paid from the FVEC Fund. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act § 1002, Pub. L. No. 111-5 (enacted February 17, 2009). 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. 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." Nothing in the act "prohibit[s] 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 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 (New) Philippine Scout under section 14 of the Armed Forces Voluntary Recruitment Act of 1945 (59 Stat. 538), Public Law 190, 79th Congress; and (2) was discharged or released from service described in paragraph (1) under conditions other than dishonorable. Under 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a) (2012), 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. A copy of an original document is acceptable if the copy is issued by the service department or if the copy was issued by a public custodian of records who certifies that it is a true and exact copy of the document in the custodian's custody; and (2) the document contains needed information as to length, time and character of service; and (3) in the opinion of VA, the document is genuine and the information contained in it is accurate. In this case, the appellant was initially found eligible in May 2010 for a one-time payment from the FVEC, based on verification of qualifying service from the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC). As the result of a June 2010 field interview, however, the RO determined the appellant was not the veteran he claimed to be, and declined to award the appellant the requested FVEC payment. In a June 2011 letter, the appellant was informed he was considered to be an imposter by VA, and he would not be issued payment. This appeal was then initiated. In support of his claim, the appellant has submitted various documents, to include photocopies of various photo identification cards , a bank book issued to the appellant by the Philippines Veterans Bank, and a statement of service issued by the Armed Forces of the Philippines. In finding the appellant was an imposter and not the veteran he claimed to be, the RO relied on a June 2010 field interview. A RO employee met the appellant at a hotel and asked him several questions regarding his alleged service. The employee noted that the appellant correctly identified his service unit and commanding officer, but misstated his birth date and the location where he was inducted into active duty service. A photograph of the appellant was also taken and associated with the examination report. In a subsequent written response to VA, the appellant asserted that he spoke a different dialect than the VA field examiner, and also had difficulty understanding the examiner's questions due to hearing loss. The explanations are plausible given the Veteran's age and geographic location. Regarding the June 2010 field examination, the Board notes that the examiner appeared to ask relatively few questions, at least based on the written report. Also, there is no indication that the examiner attempted to verify the appellant's identity by other means, such as requesting copies of official identification documents or verifying the appellant's identity with third parties in his own community. The report does not include evidence of whether a person by the Veteran's name had died (by some type of death certification), and does not explain why, if the appellant in this case were not who he claims to be, another claimant has not submitted a claim using the same name; thus, the evidence does not show that anyone else claiming to be the real Veteran either exists or has died. Based on the evidence that is of record, the Board concludes the field examination, by itself, is insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant is not the Veteran he claims to be, and has submitted evidence in support thereof. In summation, the Board finds that the appellant has submitted sufficient evidence, in the form of copies of government-issued photo identification cards and other official documents, to establish that he is the Veteran who he claims to be. Additionally, the June 2010 field examination report is found to be insufficient evidence to establish that the appellant is in fact an imposter. Thus, the Board concludes that legal entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund is warranted, based on the appellant's verified qualifying service. ORDER Legal entitlement to a one-time payment from the FVEC Fund is granted. ____________________________________________ J. Parker Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs