Board of Veterans Appeals (Attorney Advisor)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:1000000%

We need a rule that says all issues must be raised before the board before being raised at the court.

Any issue not raised at the board cannot be raised at the court. Just like in regular appellate practice. For example, claiming a new theory of service connection that was never raised at the board, should never be properly raised at the court.

Issue exhaustion is alive and well at the Court for cases where the same firm is representing before the Board and then at the Court. The Court generally will not go there if it was a VSO representing before the Board, but they do hold firms to a higher standard when they're representing in both places. Shepardize Maggit and you'll find plenty of MemDecs where the Court smacked a private firm for trying something at the Court that they didn't raise before the Board.

Yes, correct. But I’m saying we need a rule that applies across the board. It will cut down on a lot of remands.

[Anonymous]

It shouldn't be acceptable for VSOs to do the bare minimum in front of the Board.

How many appeals have had to be delayed because of a missing IHP or change in rep, only to have the fruit of that process to be a statement from DVA or whatever VSO that just restates the Veteran's already articulated position. That's not service, that's delay and a waste of everyone's time.

Either advocate and serve or don't.

There are so many inefficiencies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't be acceptable for VSOs to do the bare minimum in front of the Board.

How many appeals have had to be delayed because of a missing IHP or change in rep, only to have the fruit of that process to be a statement from DVA or whatever VSO that just restates the Veteran's already articulated position. That's not service, that's delay and a waste of everyone's time.

Either advocate and serve or don't.

There are so many inefficiencies.

100% agree. A lot of the process is slowed down by ridiculous policies, bad representation, and under developed records.

[Anonymous]

If CAVC had a strong issue preservation requirement when there’s been no change in representative I suspect that most private firms wouldn’t even bother representing veterans before the Board.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It shouldn't be acceptable for VSOs to do the bare minimum in front of the Board.

How many appeals have had to be delayed because of a missing IHP or change in rep, only to have the fruit of that process to be a statement from DVA or whatever VSO that just restates the Veteran's already articulated position. That's not service, that's delay and a waste of everyone's time.

Either advocate and serve or don't.

There are so many inefficiencies.

DAV intentionally does the bare minimum because Chisholm gets all their cases and gets the EAJA fees. The crappier the work by DAV the better it is for EAJA payout at CAVC.

[Anonymous]

I wonder if DOGE knows how much we are paying attorneys to circle jerk at CAVC.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I wonder if DOGE knows how much we are paying attorneys to circle jerk at CAVC.

I wonder if DOGE would even care.

[Anonymous]

Don't forget to send your 5 bullets email!

[Anonymous]

Anybody catch the committee hearing yesterday? Thoughts?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anybody catch the committee hearing yesterday? Thoughts?

Why not share your thoughts first?

[Anonymous]

Because I didn't catch it, and was asking if anybody caught it and had thoughts???

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Because I didn't catch it, and was asking if anybody caught it and had thoughts???

Collins lies out of both sides of his mouth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I didn't catch it, and was asking if anybody caught it and had thoughts???

Collins lies out of both sides of his mouth.

Is that also true for BVA management?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I didn't catch it, and was asking if anybody caught it and had thoughts???

Collins lies out of both sides of his mouth.

Is that also true for BVA management?

It would probably be true if they told us anything. All we get is "We don't know anything, so keep doing what you're doing ." I believe that when it comes from the SSCs and VLJs. Not so much when it comes from the DVCs or the acting Chairman.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Because I didn't catch it, and was asking if anybody caught it and had thoughts???

Collins lies out of both sides of his mouth.

Is that also true for BVA management?

It would probably be true if they told us anything. All we get is "We don't know anything, so keep doing what you're doing ." I believe that when it comes from the SSCs and VLJs. Not so much when it comes from the DVCs or the acting Chairman.

https://www.govexec.com/workforce/2025/04/va-forces-staff-workforce-reduction-discussions-sign-non-disclosure-agreements/404808/