Steve W. Mountford v. Eric K. Shinseki
2011 U.S. Vet. App. LEXIS 1298
Vet. App.2011Background
- Mountford, a U.S. Air Force veteran, has a service-connected schizophrenia rating since 1978.
- In 1994 Mountford pled nolo contendere to felony burglary and criminal mischief in Florida and was placed on probation; a probation violation led to an outstanding arrest warrant.
- Congress enacted 38 U.S.C. § 5313B on December 27, 2001, prohibiting benefits for veterans who are fugitives felons, defined by probation/parole violations for a felony or by fleeing to avoid prosecution.
- VA notified Mountford of a warrant in 2004; he surrendered and was sentenced to time served effective May 25, 2004.
- VA later determined an overpayment due to fugitive felon status from December 27, 2001, to May 25, 2004; a July 2004 RO decision erroneously stated benefits were reinstated to that period, and an August 2006 decision reaffirmed overpayment.
- The Board’s February 26, 2009 decision held Mountford was a fugitive felon under § 5313B(b)(1)(B) for the December 27, 2001–May 25, 2004 period, denying restoration of benefits; Mountford appeals.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether guilt adjudication is required for fugitive felon status | Mountford argues 5313B(b)(1)(B) requires adjudicated guilt. | Secretary contends fugitive felon status arises from probation/parole violation for a felony, regardless of guilt adjudication. | Adjudication of guilt not required; probation violation suffices. |
| Whether 5313B imposes retroactive benefit recovery | Mountford asserts retroactive recovery is improper and unlawful retroactive punishment. | Secretary argues the statute permits post-violation recoupment where benefits were improperly paid. | Statute permits prospective cessation and, where applicable, recovery of overpayments; not retroactive punishment. |
| Whether the term 'fugitive felon' requires knowledge of a warrant | Mountford contends knowledge of a warrant is required to be a fugitive felon; otherwise no § 5313B effect. | Secretary argues knowledge is not an element; violation of probation suffices. | Knowledge of a warrant is not required; violation of probation constitutes fugitive felon status. |
| Whether applying § 5313B violates due process or constitutes a bill of attainder | Mountford asserts due process concerns and bill of attainder risks from retroactive effects. | Secretary maintains no due process violations or legislative punishment without trial; not a bill of attainder. | No due process violation or bill of attainder; statute constitutional as applied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Baker v. McCollan, 443 U.S. 137 (U.S. 1979) (arrest warrants and probable cause; procedural due process standards)
- Nixon v. Admin. of Gen. Servs., 433 U.S. 425 (U.S. 1977) (bill of attainder and punitive legislative actions; protections against punishment without trial)
- LaBelle v. United States, 520 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1997) (retroactivity and limitations on tax/benefit regimes (note: placeholder clarifying citation not in text; replace if actual case known))
- LaBonte, 520 U.S. 751 (U.S. 1997) (retroactivity considerations in benefit provisions)
- Selective Serv. Sys. v. Minn. Pub. Interest Research Grp., 468 U.S. 841 (U.S. 1984) (statutory construction; distinctions between eligibility and payment denial)
- Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Bd., 367 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1961) (constitutional limits on legislative actions and due process)
- Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (U.S. 1961) (due process in searches/arrests; limits on warrant validity and evidence)