Juliet T. Tagupa v. Robert A. McDonald
2014 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1455
| Vet. App. | 2014Background
- Tagupa seeks VA benefits based on her late husband Luis Tagupa's World War II service; NPRC initially denied verification of service.
- NPRC's May 2009 and August 2009 responses stated no service for the Philippines Commonwealth Army or recognized guerrillas in U.S. Armed Forces service.
- The Board's 2011 decision denied benefits; on reconsideration, the Court remanded to address whether NPRC/NARA could verify service and whether the Army delegated authority to verify.
- Court took judicial notice of a 1998 MOA between the Department of the Army and NARA, finding ambiguity about delegation of verification authority to NPRC.
- The panel concluded that VA must verify service from the Department of the Army absent evidence of statutory delegation, and remanded for Army verification; issues included evidence adequacy and potential unrecognized guerrilla service.
- Throughout, the Board was found to have provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases for rejecting certain documents offered as evidence of service.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Service verification source | NPRC cannot verify; service department verification required | NPRC/NARA can verify as agent of the Army | Remand to obtain Army verification; delegation not clearly shown |
| MOA delegation clarity | MOA shows NPRC authority to make service determinations | MOA suggests reference role but not clear delegation | Ambiguity; remand to clarify delegation |
| Adequacy of Board's reasons | Board inadequately rejected favorable evidence | Board reasonably weighed evidence | Remand for adequate reasons/bases |
| Duty to assist and further development | VA should pursue further development if NPRC declines | Duty to assist limited pending Army verification | Remand to address duty to obtain verification from Army |
| Unrecognized guerrilla service | Possible unrecognized guerrilla service sufficient for benefits | No service verified as recognized/unrecognized guerrilla | Remand to consider unrecognized guerrilla service |
Key Cases Cited
- Capellan v. Peake, 539 F.3d 1373 (Fed.Cir. 2008) (NPRC not always a substitute; service department verification required)
- Duro v. Derwinski, 2 Vet.App. 530 (1992) (Regulation § 3.203 requires service department documents or verification)
- Soria v. Brown, 118 F.3d 747 (Fed.Cir. 1997) (Service department determinations are conclusive; NPRC not sole verifier)
- Tropf v. Nicholson, 20 Vet.App. 317 (2006) (If regulation is clear, its meaning governs; ‘shall’ denotes mandatory action)
- Canlas v. Nicholson, 21 Vet.App. 312 (2007) (Duty to assist includes obtaining records from federal entities)
- Sarmiento v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 80 (1994) (Repeated demands to obtain service verification; NPRC context)
- Allday v. Brown, 7 Vet.App. 517 (1995) (Board must provide adequate reasons for rejecting favorable evidence)
- Tucker v. West, 11 Vet.App. 369 (1998) (Remand appropriate when Board lacks adequate rationale)