Citation Nr: 20051364 Decision Date: 08/03/20 Archive Date: 08/03/20 DOCKET NO. 20-16 504 DATE: August 3, 2020 ORDER The motion to revise a February 11, 2020, Board decision on the basis of clear and unmistakable error (CUE) is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. FINDING OF FACT The February 2020 motion seeking to revise the Board’s February 11, 2020, decision denying a compensable rating for bilateral hearing loss did not set forth with clarity or specificity the alleged error(s) of fact or law, the legal or factual basis for such allegation(s), and why the result would have been manifestly different but for the alleged error(s). CONCLUSION OF LAW 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 U.S.C. § 7111; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.1403(c), 20.1404(b). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the moving party, had active service from April 1966 to February 1970. In a February 11, 2020, decision, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) denied a claim for a compensable rating for hearing loss. The Board received the Veteran’s motion for revision of that decision on the basis of CUE later in February 2020. A motion for revision of a decision based on clear and unmistakable error must be in writing and must be signed by the moving party or that party’s representative. The motion must include the name of the Veteran; the name of the moving party if other than the Veteran; the applicable Department of Veterans Affairs file number; and the date of the Board decision to which the motion relates. If the applicable decision involved more than one issue on appeal, the motion must identify the specific issue, or issues, to which the motion pertains. Motions which fail to comply with the requirements set forth in this paragraph shall be dismissed without prejudice to refiling under this subpart. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(a). In addition to those preliminary pleading requirements, a valid motion for revision of a Board decision based on clear and unmistakable error 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, nonspecific 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). Here, the Board finds that the February 2020 motion for revision of the Board’s decision on the basis of CUE simply does not include the degree of specificity required to adjudicate it. The Veteran’s motion cites July 2019 audiological results and an audiologist recommendation that hearing aids be worn in his contention that he experienced hearing problems. He also indicated there was a permanent positive threshold shift documented in July 2015 hearing test results suggesting that his hearing loss was caused by his active service. Finally, he stated that his hearing had gotten worse through the years due to the extremely loud aircraft noise he was exposed to in service. (Continued on the next page)   The Board is unable to discern what specifically the Veteran is contending with respect to how the February 2020 Board decision contained any outcome-determinative errors. Much of his motion relates to the fact that his hearing loss was due to service. The Board’s decision in February 2020 did not, however, address that issue, and service connection for this disability had already been granted. Rather, the issue before the Board at that time was determining the proper disability rating in accordance with the applicable rating criteria. In the February 2020 decision, the Board did acknowledge that there had been some documented worsening in the Veteran’s hearing but that that worsening was not severe enough to warrant a compensable disability rating in accordance with the disability rating criteria. The February 2020 CUE motion does not include any statements or contentions explaining how the Board erred on a legal or factual basis when it applied those criteria to the competent evidence of record. Where the moving party is pro se, the Board is required to request the revision sympathetically notwithstanding the requirements for specific pleading. See Canady v. Nicholson, 20 Vet. App. 393, 402 (2006). However, the motion presently before the Board does not give any insight into how the February 2020 Board decision resulted in some error of fact or law that manifestly changed the outcome of the case. As such, the pleading requirements of 38 C.F.R. § 20.1404(b) are not met and the motion is dismissed without prejudice to refiling. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Whitelaw, Associate Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.