User:KevCor360/sandbox-BVA

The Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), located in Washington, D.C. Established by Executive Order on July 28, 1933, the Board's is tasked with reviewing and making decisions on appeals concerning veterans' benefits. Its mission is to conduct hearings and issue decisions in a timely manner, ensuring that all relevant evidence and applicable laws and regulations are thoroughly considered to provide fair and just outcomes for veterans, their dependents, and survivors, on behalf of the Secretary, based upon a de novo review of all evidence and applicable provisions of law and regulation.

In Fiscal Year 2023, the BVA issued a record 103,245 decisions, marking the fifth consecutive year with over 95,000 decisions. Of these, 70,584 (68%) were legacy system appeals, and 32,661 (32%) were under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA). The Board reduced its pending hearings inventory by 2.6%, from 74,411 to 72,465 by the end of the fiscal year, with a significant 85% decrease in pending legacy appeals.

Board Executives
The Board is led by a chairman, a vice chairman, a senior deputy vice chairman, four deputy vice chairmen, an executive director for appellate support, and chief counsel. The Chairman ranks equivalent to a department Assistant Secretary and is nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate for a term of six years. The Vice Chairman is a member of the Senior Executive Service, and is appointed by the Secretary, with the approval of the President, and serves at the pleasure of the Secretary and is the Chief Operating Officer of the Board.

Deputy Vice Chairmen (or DVCs) are members of the Board and of the Senior Executive Service and are appointed by the Secretary, by and with the approval of the President to serve as a member of Board's executive leadership team. Their primary role is to provide oversight, guidance and management of the work product of the Veterans Law Judges, helping identify, consider, and resolve motions and appeals. Each DVC manages a team of a number of decision-writing judges and their staff counsel, with the Senior Deputy Vice Chairman performing administrative leadership functions in assisting the Vice Chairman with the day-to-day operations.

Other executive staff include Chief Counsel, who oversees the Board's Quality Assurance and Improvement, CAVC Litigation Support, Customer Service and Records Management programs, and the executive director of Appellate Support, which is responsible for overseeing the non-decision-making support offices of the Board, such as human resources, logistics and supplies, and IT.

Veterans Law Judges (VLJ)
The Secretary may appoint any number of members that he or she deems "necessary in order to conduct hearings and dispose of appeals properly before the Board in a timely manner". Those members are appointed by the Secretary, based on recommendations by the Chairman, and with the approval of the President, and must be an attorney "in good standing" with any state bar. Members are commissioned and titled as Veterans Law Judges (VLJs), and have similar duties and responsibilities to executive branch administrative law judges in the United States. , the Board consists of 110 VLJs, each of whom typically decide an appeal in a single-judge decision, although in certain cases, a panel decision of at least three VLJs may be formed. The Board also employs nearly 800 attorney-advisors (titled as Associate Counsel, Counsel or Senior Counsel in Board decisions, depending on paygrade and tenure) which are staff attorneys also trained in veterans law who assist each VLJ review the facts of each case and write the decision, and a number of non-decision writing attorneys, professional and administrative staff to help execute the numerous other Board programs supporting the decision teams.

The Chairman, Vice Chairman, Deputy Vice Chairmen, and Chief Counsel are all members of the Board. However, the Chairman is prohibited by law from deciding appeals, unless he or she is sitting as part of a panel. In practice, however, rarely do any of the senior executives write a Board decision (outside of ruling on certain motions).

Jurisdiction
The Board's jurisdiction extends to all questions in matters involving a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects a provision of benefits by the Secretary to Veterans, their dependents, or their Survivors. Veterans, their dependents, or their survivors who are dissatisfied with decisions made by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) within the VA can appeal to the Board. The AOJs include the Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Veterans Health Administration (VHA), National Cemetery Administration (NCA), and the Office of General Counsel (OGC). When an appeal is filed, the Board reviews the case de novo, meaning it re-evaluates all evidence and legal arguments without deference to the AOJ's findings, except for findings of fact that are favorable to the claimant.

Legacy Appeals
Legacy appeals pertain to decisions issued prior to February 19, 2019, under the previous VA appeals process. In these appeals, veterans and their representatives contest decisions made by an Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). The process includes filing a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the AOJ, receiving a Statement of the Case (SOC) detailing the reasons and bases for the decision, and submitting a substantive appeal on a VA Form 9. Upon filing the substantive appeal, the AOJ certifies the appeal to the Board, at which point appellate jurisdiction begins. Legacy appeals often involve a continuous open record, allowing veterans to submit new evidence and arguments at any stage. If new evidence is presented after the SOC, a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) must be issued. While this system aims to ensure all relevant information is considered before a final decision, it can lead to a prolonged process as the Board frequently remands appeal back to the AOJ for initial review of the new evidence.

Post-AMA Appeal
The Veterans Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of 2017 (AMA) introduced significant changes to the VA appeals process for decisions issued on or after February 19, 2019. This act restructured the VA appeals process, offering veterans more streamlined and flexible options for appealing AOJ decisions, including two new options for seeking review at the AOJ level, aiming to reduce wait times and improve efficiency.

Under the AMA, veterans can choose from three distinct appeal dockets by filing a NOD directly with the Board. Once the NOD is docketed and reviewed by the Board, the appeals are placed on one of the three dockets, depending on how the veteran chose to have their claims and supporting evidence reviewed:


 * Direct Review Docket: In a Direct Review appeal, the Board reviews the AOJ decision based solely on the evidence available at the time of the initial decision. No new evidence is considered, making this the fastest review option. Veterans can still submit written arguments to support their claims.
 * Evidence Submission Docket: In an Evidence Submission appeal, the record is closed between the date of the AOJ decision and the date of the appeal. This option allows veterans to submit new and relevant evidence within 90 days of filing the NOD. This lane is beneficial for veterans who have additional evidence to support their claims but do not require a hearing.
 * Hearing Docket: Veterans opting for this docket can request a hearing with a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) to present their case. Hearings can be conducted in person, via videoconference, or virtually. After the hearing, veterans have 90 days to submit new evidence to support their claims. This option provides an opportunity for veterans to personally explain their case and submit additional evidence.

Simultaneously Contested Appeals
While not a separate type of appeal, contested appeals differ from the typal appeal, because they involve multiple parties with competing interests in the same VA benefits, such as apportionment of benefits among dependents, recognition of survivors for Dependency and Indemnity Compensation (DIC), or disputes over attorney fees and expenses. Contested claim decision review options are limited to Board review, and appeals must be initiated within sixty days of the AOJ decision. Once the Board gains jurisdiction, the appeal is placed on the docket that provides the most advantageous review for all parties. For instance, if one party selects Direct Review and another selects Evidence Submission, the appeal will be placed on the Evidence Submission docket. All parties are given the opportunity to participate, including attending hearings and submitting evidence.

Board Hearings
If a hearing is requested, the Board schedules the veteran and their representative for a hearing, based on the type of hearing they requested when initiating the appeal. Hearings can be held either at the Board's offices in Washington, DC, virtually, using a internet-connected device with a camera such as a computer, tablet device, or mobile phone. or via videoconference from a VA Regional Office or other VA location. In the case of legacy appeals, in-person appeals can also be held by a Travel Board hearing, which involves the VLJ holding the hearing at a local VA Regional Office. During the hearing, the veteran is placed under oath, and then the veteran and their representative provide opening statements, testimony, and evidence to support their case. The Veterans Law Judge (VLJ) may ask clarifying questions to better understand the case, but generally, the hearing is considered non-adversarial. The hearing is recorded, and the transcript becomes part of the evidentiary record.

Remands
If the Board determines that additional evidence or further development is needed, it can remand the case to the AOJ. A remand is not a final decision but a directive for further action, such as gathering additional evidence, obtaining a medical opinion, or addressing procedural errors.

In legacy appeals, a remand directs the AOJ to complete specific development actions such as gathering new evidence or obtaining medical opinions. The Board may remand a legacy appeal if there is a procedural defect, such as a failure to provide a required notice or assistance, or if further development of evidence is necessary. The AOJ must complete the specified actions and readjudicate the claim. If the readjudication does not fully grant the issue on appeal, the appeal must return to the Board for further review.

Under the AMA, a remand returns jurisdiction of the claim to the AOJ to issue a new decision consistent with the remand directives. Under the AMA appeals can only be remanded for limited reasons such as the AOJ's failure to fulfill its duty to assist the veteran in obtaining evidence or if the Board identifies an error that occurred prior to the AOJ decision under appeal. Once the AOJ completes the required actions and issues a new decision, the veteran can appeal again if they are not satisfied with the outcome.

Board Decisions
Once all applicable evidence is reviewed, the Board issues a written decision outlining the findings of fact and conclusions of law on the issues presented, and an order either granting or denying the benefits sought. These decisions are considered final determinations of fact and law on the issues, binding unless appealed or reconsidered. They are non-precedential, meaning they apply only to the specific case and do not establish or modify VA policies.

Once the Board issues its final decision, an appellant can file one of three post-decisional motions to request the Board review its decision. The motions include a Motion to Vacate, which requests nullification of the decision due to procedural errors or false evidence; a Motion for Reconsideration, which asks the Board to re-examine its decision based on significant factual or legal mistakes or new evidence; and a Motion for Revision based on Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE), which seeks to correct undebatable errors that impacted the outcome. These motions must meet specific criteria and can only be sought if the Board decision if the appellant has not sought judicial review of the claim.

Judicial Review
Pursuant to, exclusive jurisdiction for the review of Board decisions is vested in the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. The appellant must file a Notice of Appeal directly with CAVC within 120 days from the date of the BVA's decision in order to seek review of the Board's decision. Only a veteran can file an appeal to the CAVC; the Secretary is prohibited by law from doing so. CAVC reviews are limited to determining whether the Board's decision adheres to applicable veterans' law, federal administrative procedures, and/or the Constitution. Findings of fact by the Board are not reviewable unless clearly erroneous.

The court may then affirm, reverse, remand, or modify the BVA's decision based on its findings. Decisions from CAVC can then be appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit if a disagreement over a question of law remains. The final avenue for appeal is to the Supreme Court of the United States, which may review the case if it presents a significant legal issue.

Legacy Inventory & AMA Wait Times
The BVA faces several challenges, including managing the increasing volume and complexity of appeals, reducing wait times, and addressing backlogs. The implementation of new legislative measures, such as the PACT Act and the inclusion of Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) cases, has significantly impacted the Board's workload. The Board aims to achieve specific processing time targets by FY 2025: 365 days for Direct docket appeals, 550 days for Evidence docket appeals, and 730 days for Hearing docket appeals. Despite these efforts, wait times remain outside these targets, especially for appeals where hearings are requested. At the end of FY2023, the average time to complete an AMA decision was 314 days for Direct Review, 695 days for Evidence Submission, and 927 days for the Hearing docket.

VHA Caregiver Appeals
The inclusion of Program of Comprehensive Assistance for Family Caregivers (PCAFC) cases, following the Beaudette v. McDonough decision, has significantly increased the Board of Veterans' Appeals (BVA) workload. In FY 2023, the Board adapted by reallocating resources and training Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) and staff to handle these additional cases. This expansion has underscored the need for further resources to maintain timely adjudication of caregiver benefit appeals.

VLJ & Attorney Retention
Retention of Veterans Law Judges (VLJs) and attorneys is a persistent challenge for the BVA due to high workloads and the complexity of cases. In FY 2023, the Board increased the number of VLJs to 134 and decision-writing attorneys to 983. The attrition rate for Board attorneys decreased from 13.4% in FY 2019 to 7.4% in FY 2023. The BVA has introduced initiatives like professional development opportunities, enhanced workplace conditions, and competitive compensation to improve retention and maintain decision quality. The Board's commitment to diversity and organizational culture improvements has also contributed to lower attrition rates.

Legislative and Policy Changes
Recent legislative measures, such as the PACT Act, have significantly impacted the BVA's operations. The Act's implementation has resulted in an increased volume of appeals, requiring the Board to adjust its processes and resources accordingly. The Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) continues to play a crucial role in streamlining the appeals process, aiming to provide veterans with quicker resolutions to their claims.

In FY 2023, the BVA issued 32,661 AMA decisions, reflecting a 39% increase from the previous year. The Board's commitment to the AMA framework has led to a notable reduction in remand rates and an increase in grant rates compared to the legacy system.

The integration of the PCAFC cases and other legislative requirements has necessitated ongoing adjustments in the Board's procedures. Continuous collaboration with stakeholders, including the Government Accountability Office (GAO), has been essential in implementing recommendations to enhance the quality and efficiency of decisions.