748 F.3d 1351
Fed. Cir.2014Background
- Wayne E. Bowers served in the Army National Guard (Mar 1972–Mar 1978) and had a continuous period of active duty for training (Aug 1972–Feb 1973); service records show no injury or disease in service.
- Thirty years after service, Bowers was diagnosed with ALS and filed a VA benefits claim in 2009 asserting presumptive service connection under 38 C.F.R. § 3.318.
- A VA Regional Office denied the claim; the Board of Veterans’ Appeals found that active duty for training alone does not generally create entitlement to evidentiary presumptions and that Bowers did not qualify as a “veteran.”
- The Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims affirmed, holding § 3.318 requires attainment of veteran status (so Bowers, who did not meet the statutory veteran definition, was ineligible).
- Mrs. Bowers (substituted appellant after her husband’s death) appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing the regulation should apply to anyone with qualifying active service of 90+ days irrespective of statutory “veteran” status.
- The Federal Circuit affirmed, concluding the regulation’s reference to “active military, naval, or air service” incorporates the statutory definition of veteran and thus limits the presumption to those who qualify as veterans.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALS presumption in 38 C.F.R. § 3.318 applies to persons who served only in the National Guard and did not meet the statutory definition of "veteran" | Bowers: § 3.318 does not say "veteran status," so any qualifying active service (90+ days) should trigger the presumption even if statutory "veteran" definition is unmet | VA/Shinseki: § 3.318 refers to "active military, naval, or air service," a term defined by statute to require veteran status; regulation therefore limits the presumption to statutory veterans | The court held the regulation incorporates the statutory definition of "active military, naval, or air service," so the presumption applies only to those who qualify as veterans under 38 U.S.C. § 101 |
Key Cases Cited
- Cushman v. Shinseki, 576 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (describing standard of review for Veterans Court legal determinations and de novo review scope)