Citation Nr: 18153908 Decision Date: 11/28/18 Archive Date: 11/28/18 DOCKET NO. 15-45 158 DATE: November 28, 2018 ORDER The motion is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In May 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (hereinafter, "the Court") vacated and remanded the June 25, 2014 Board decision as to the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral glaucoma, to include whether a November 7, 1998 rating decision denying service connection for a bilateral eye disability involved CUE. 2. On October 16, 2015, a motion for revision of a June 25, 2014 Board decision based on clear and unmistakable error (CUE) was filed. 3. The Veteran’s motion alleging CUE did not set forth clearly and specifically the alleged CUE, or error(s) of fact or law, in the June 25, 2014 Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegation(s), and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error(s). CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. In the absence of a final decision on the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral glaucoma, to include whether a November 7, 1998 rating decision denying service connection for a bilateral eye disability involved CUE, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the motion for revision of a decision based on clear and unmistakable error. 38 U.S.C. § 7111; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400. 2. Because the pleading requirements for a motion for revision of a decision based on CUE have not been met, the motion must be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(b) (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS In a June 25, 2014 decision, the Board, in pertinent part, denied entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral glaucoma, to include whether a November 7, 1998 rating decision denying service connection for a bilateral eye disability involved CUE. The Board did not adjudicate any claims related to low lung volume, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), sarcoidosis, lung disorder (PFT), nephrolithiasis, severe gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD), variable extrathoracic obstructions nexus sleep apnea, or bilateral foot condition plantar fasciitis/flat feet. Earlier Effective Date for Bilateral Glaucoma, Including CUE All final Board decisions are subject to revision on the basis of CUE except for those decisions which have been appealed to and decided by the Court, and decisions on issues which have subsequently been decided by the Court. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1400. The Court has vacated and remanded the June 25, 2014, Board decision as to the issue of entitlement to an earlier effective date for the award of service connection for bilateral glaucoma, to include whether a November 7, 1998 rating decision denying service connection for a bilateral eye disability involved CUE, that was challenged on the basis of clear and unmistakable error in the moving party's motion. Thus, there is no final decision for the Board to review on the basis of clear and unmistakable error. Accordingly, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the motion as to this issue and it is dismissed. Other Issues In the June 25, 2014 decision, the Board did not adjudicate any claims related to low lung volume, chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), sarcoidosis, lung disorder (PFT), nephrolithiasis, severe gastroesophageal reflux disorder (GERD), variable extrathoracic obstructions nexus sleep apnea, or bilateral foot condition plantar fasciitis/flat feet. In October 2015, the Veteran filed a motion for revision of the June 25, 2014 Board decision on the basis of CUE, and specifically stated that CUE existed as to these issues. A motion for revision of a Board decision based on CUE must set forth clearly and specifically the alleged clear and unmistakable error, or errors, of fact or law in the Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegations, and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error. Nonspecific allegations of failure to follow regulations or failure to give due process, or any other general, non-specific allegations of error, are insufficient to satisfy this requirement. Motions which fail to comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(b) (2017). In this case, the Board finds that the Veteran has not filed a CUE motion as to the June 25, 2014 Board decision that complies with the pleading requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(b). The motion does not clearly and specifically state the alleged clear and unmistakable error(s) committed by the Board, nor does it contain specific allegation(s) of failure on the part of the Board to follow regulations. Rather, the Veteran has asked that the Board grant service connection for these issues and assign a 10 percent rating back to October 1, 1997. Essentially, the Veteran appears to be alleging CUE in VA decisions prior to the June 25, 2014 Board decision. Nevertheless, the Veteran did not specify any error of fact or law in the June 25, 2014 Board decision. As the Veteran has not identified any basis for finding CUE in the June 25, 2014 Board decision, the Board must find that his motion did not clearly and specifically state the alleged CUE, or error(s) of fact or law, in the Board decision, the legal or factual basis for such allegation(s), and why the result would have bene manifestly different but for the alleged error(s). Because the moving party’s motion fails to comply with the requirements set forth in 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(b) (2017), the motion is dismissed. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Thomas, Associate Counsel