If Then the RO And the Veterans … … Service Representative (VSR) or RVSR … a decision has been does not have jurisdiction notifies the claimant affirmed by BVA to review the claim for a CUE determination that the RO does not have jurisdiction to The RO does Rationale: review the claim for a not have jurisdiction to CUE determination consider a claim of CUE in of his/her appellate a decision that has been rights, and subsumed by a BVA that he/she should file a decision. motion for reconsideration by BVA, if a review at that level is desired. have jurisdiction notifies the claimant the decision was does not to review the claim for a not appealed, but CUE determination that the RO does not a later reopened have jurisdiction to claim was The General Rationale: review the claim for a followed by a Counsel has concluded CUE determination BVA affirmance that the RO does not have of his/her appellate jurisdiction to consider a rights, and CUE claim where BVA that he/she should file a has motion for reviewed the entire reconsideration by record of the claim BVA, if a review at that following reopening, and level is desired. denied the benefits previously denied in the All SOCs for Note: unappealed decision. appeals in which the issue on appeal involves a prior unappealed RO decision, followed by a claim to reopen the claim that was decided by BVA, should contain a citation to . does have jurisdiction to reviews the unappealed the decision was review the claim for a decision for CUE. not appealed, and CUE determination a subsequent BVA decision The BVA Rationale: merely decision does not bar a concludes that claim of CUE in the prior new and unappealed RO decision. material The General Counsel has evidence
If … Then the RO … And the Veterans Service Representative (VSR) or RVSR … a decision has been affirmed by BVA does not have jurisdiction to review the claim for a CUE determination Rationale: The RO does not have jurisdiction to consider a claim of CUE in a decision that has been subsumed by a BVA decision. notifies the claimant that the RO does not have jurisdiction to review the claim for a CUE determination of his/her appellate rights, and that he/she should file a motion for reconsideration by BVA, if a review at that level is desired. the decision was not appealed, but a later reopened claim was followed by a BVA affirmance does not have jurisdiction to review the claim for a CUE determination Rationale: The General Counsel has concluded that the RO does not have jurisdiction to consider a CUE claim where BVA has reviewed the entire record of the claim following reopening, and denied the benefits previously denied in the unappealed decision. notifies the claimant that the RO does not have jurisdiction to review the claim for a CUE determination of his/her appellate rights, and that he/she should file a motion for reconsideration by BVA, if a review at that level is desired. Note: All SOCs for appeals in which the issue on appeal involves a prior unappealed RO decision, followed by a claim to reopen the claim that was decided by BVA, should contain a citation to . the decision was not appealed, and a subsequent BVA decision merely concludes that new and material evidence does have jurisdiction to review the claim for a CUE determination Rationale: The BVA decision does not bar a claim of CUE in the prior unappealed RO decision. The General Counsel has reviews the unappealed decision for CUE.