BVA Case 97-192: Back

Trilles appeals a November 14, 1996, Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) decision that determined that no new and material evidence had been presented to reopen a decision under 38 U.

Moreover, the Board found that because the claims file already contained the marriage and death certificates at issue, the evidence presented was not sufficient to reopen Mrs.

On February 8, 1999, the Secretary responded to the Court's order; he asserts that although declaration of forfeiture bars a person from receiving benefits, it was never contemplated by Congress or VA that the person could not attempt to reestablish eligibility for benefits either by presenting new and material evidence or by demonstrating clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the previous decision declaring a forfeiture.

156 (1998), whether new and material evidence exists to reopen the matter.

She also asserts that a remand is required to allow the Board, in the first instance, to address the forfeiture questions raised in the Court's briefing order.

Thus, as with claims for VA benefits, the Secretary has promulgated rules allowing for final forfeiture decisions to be reopened upon the presentment of new and material evidence or upon a showing of CUE in a previous final decision.

The Board determined that the evidence submitted was not new and material and denied reopening.

5108, the Court, on de novo review, also found that the evidence presented was not new and material and held that the Board did not err by not reopening the appellant's claim.