Claim Raven explanation
What this means
This section defines the Veterans Court's scope of review. The Court decides legal questions, may compel unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed action, reviews legal and procedural error, and applies the clearly erroneous standard to adverse material fact findings.
The Court can set aside action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, contrary to law or constitutional right, beyond statutory authority, or procedurally defective. It may set aside or reverse an adverse material fact finding if clearly erroneous. The prejudicial-error rule means identifying an error alone may not be enough without showing why it mattered.
How this helps your claim
Different alleged errors use different standards. The Court also considers VA's application of the benefit-of-the-doubt statute and the rule of prejudicial error, and it does not retry facts from the beginning.
What to check in your records
Classify each alleged error as legal, procedural, factual, delayed action, or another review category supported by the record.
- Identify the Board finding, conclusion, or omitted action being challenged.
- Cite the record evidence and legal authority relevant to that issue.
- Explain how the claimed error could have affected the decision.
Pair each error with the correct review standard
For a legal issue, identify the statute or regulation and the Board's interpretation. For a factual issue, identify the material finding and the record that makes it clearly erroneous. For a procedural issue, identify the required step and resulting harm.
Avoid presenting the Court appeal as a new evidence hearing. The review uses the agency record and does not conduct a trial de novo. If new evidence is central, evaluate the separate VA route that can receive it.
Does the Veterans Court decide the claim again from the beginning?
No. The Court reviews the Board's action under statutory standards and the existing agency record. Findings of fact are not tried de novo, and legal, factual, and procedural challenges are analyzed differently.
Official statutory text
38 USC § 7261
OLRC release: pl-119-108. Layout and spacing are adapted for reading. The statutory text is shown here; publisher source credits and editorial notes remain in the linked official release.
§ 7261. Scope of review
(a) In any action brought under this chapter, the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, to the extent necessary to its decision and when presented, shall—
(1) decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional, statutory, and regulatory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an action of the Secretary;
(2) compel action of the Secretary unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed;
(3) hold unlawful and set aside decisions, findings (other than those described in clause (4) of this subsection), conclusions, rules, and regulations issued or adopted by the Secretary, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, or the Chairman of the Board found to be—
(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law;
(B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity;
(C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or in violation of a statutory right; or
(D) without observance of procedure required by law; and
(4) in the case of a finding of material fact adverse to the claimant made in reaching a decision in a case before the Department with respect to benefits under laws administered by the Secretary, hold unlawful and set aside or reverse such finding if the finding is clearly erroneous.
(b) In making the determinations under subsection (a), the Court shall review the record of proceedings before the Secretary and the Board of Veterans’ Appeals pursuant to section 7252(b) of this title and shall—
(1) take due account of the Secretary’s application of section 5107(b) of this title; and
(2) take due account of the rule of prejudicial error.
(c) In no event shall findings of fact made by the Secretary or the Board of Veterans’ Appeals be subject to trial de novo by the Court.
(d) When a final decision of the Board of Veterans’ Appeals is adverse to a party and the sole stated basis for such decision is the failure of the party to comply with any applicable regulation prescribed by the Secretary, the Court shall review only questions raised as to compliance with and the validity of the regulation.
Related references
- 38 USC § 5107: Benefit of the doubt in VA claims
- 38 USC § 7252: What the Veterans Court may review
- 38 USC § 7266: Appealing a Board Decision to the Veterans Court
- 38 USC § 7292: Federal Circuit review of Veterans Court decisions
Ready to review your own document? Start your free claim review.