Citation Nr: A24050488 Decision Date: 08/27/24 Archive Date: 08/27/24 DOCKET NO. 210806-335844 DATE: August 27, 2024 ORDER The issue of entitlement to a certificate of eligibility for the purposes of a VA (Veterans Affairs) loan guaranty is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran has been issued a certificate of eligibility for her use for a VA loan guaranty. CONCLUSION OF LAW With respect to whether the Veteran military service qualifies her for the issuance of a certificate of eligibility for the purposes of a VA loan guaranty, as the benefit sought on appeal has been granted in full, there remains no question of law or fact on appeal, and the appeal is dismissed due to the absence of a controversy at issue. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.103, 20.104. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Air Force from January 2019 to January 2000, and also had service in the Air National Guard/Air Force Reserves. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a letter decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) [agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ)]. The Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 and implementing regulations impose obligations on VA to provide claimants with notice and assistance. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5102, 5103, 5103A, 5107; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.102, 3.156(a), 3.159, 3.326(a). The Veteran has not raised any concerns with VA's duties to notify or assist with regard to the issue now on appeal. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (holding that "the Board's obligation to read filings in a liberal manner does not require the Board to search the record and address procedural arguments when the veteran fails to raise them before the Board."); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (applying Scott to duty to assist argument). The Board has reviewed all the evidence in the claims file. Although the Board has an obligation to provide adequate reasons and bases supporting this decision, there is no requirement that the evidence submitted by the Veteran or obtained on her behalf be discussed in detail. Rather, the Board's analysis below will focus specifically on what evidence is needed to substantiate the claim and what the evidence in the claims file shows, or fails to show, with respect to the claim. See Gonzales v. West, 218 F.3d 1378, 1380-81 (Fed. Cir. 2000) and Timberlake v. Gober, 14 Vet. App. 122, 128-130 (2000). The Board would point out that this claim has been processed pursuant to the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The Board may only consider the evidence of record before the AOJ at the time of its decision on the issues on appeal, evidence submitted by the Veteran at a Board hearing, to include testimony provided at the hearing; and evidence submitted within 90 days following the Board hearing (if applicable). 38 C.F.R. § 20.300(a), 302(a). If additional evidence was submitted between the dates of the AOJ decision and the hearing, the Board will not consider it unless it is resubmitted during the 90 days following each of these actions. If the Veteran would like VA to consider any evidence that was added to the claims file that the Board could not consider, the Veteran may file a supplemental claim (VA Form 20-0995) and submit or identify this evidence. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2501. If the evidence is new and relevant, VA will issue another decision on the claim, considering the new evidence in addition to the evidence previously considered. Id. Specific instructions for filing a supplemental claim are included with this decision. See also Cook v. McDonough, 36 Vet. App. 175 (2023). The Veteran originally sought to obtain a certificate of eligibility for the purposes of obtaining a VA loan guaranty. She was initially denied a certificate of eligibility in February 2021. In denying her request, the AOJ indicated that the Veteran was not eligible because of length-of-service did not meet the required six creditable years of service. She was notified of that determination and she appealed to the Board for review claiming that she did have six years of service. The record shows that when the Veteran's claim was forwarded to the Board, the Board contacted the local loan guaranty office and requested that all of the Veteran's records be included in her VA electronic records. Said records were downloaded. Subsequently, the AOJ loan guaranty office contacted the Board in March 2023 and noted that the Veteran had been issued a certificate of eligibility since the Veteran had appealed the original denial. Per the file, the Veteran has been issued a certificate of eligibility. As such, there remains no case or controversy before the VA. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs (Secretary) shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision under a law that affects the provision of benefits to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. 38 U.S.C. § 511 (a). All questions in a matter subject to decision by the Secretary shall be subject to one review on appeal, and final decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board. 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (a). (Continued on the next page) ? It is a well-established judicial precedent that when there is no case or controversy, or when a once live case or controversy becomes moot, a court lacks jurisdiction to consider the case and dismissal is the appropriate action for the court to take. See Mokal v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 12, 15 (1990); Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 376 (1992). In the present case, the benefit sought by the Veteran has been granted, the appeal has been rendered moot by the actions of the AOJ, the Veteran's claim has been resolved, and this particular matter has been rendered moot. There does not remain any question of law or fact for the Board to address and it thereby follows that this appeal must be dismissed for lack of a case or controversy. M. MILLS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Department of Veterans Affairs 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.