Our firm recently secured a significant victory before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims that shows the importance of understanding the legal nuances of what is and isn’t a proper withdrawal of a claim. The Secretary of Veterans Affairs agreed with our position that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals committed critical errors.

Background of the Case

Our client, a Navy veteran, sought an earlier effective date for service connection of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD). The Board denied the claim after wrongly finding that our client withdrew a July 2014 PTSD application. The Board relied entirely on a February 2015 Report of General Information documenting a phone call requesting withdrawal. But neither the phone call nor a related handwritten lay statement belonged to our client.

Critical Board Errors

First, the Board completely ignored the representative’s arguments about the disputed documents

The handwritten lay statement referenced military service in Germany and described the writer as a “fellow soldier.” Our client served exclusively in the Navy and never set foot in Germany. These glaring inconsistencies strongly suggested that VA misfiled another veteran’s documents into our client’s folder.

Second, the Board failed to apply the legal standard from DeLisio v. Shinseki

DeLisio requires that any claim withdrawal demonstrate explicit, unambiguous intent with full understanding of its consequences. The Board never analyzed whether the alleged telephone withdrawal met this critical standard. It simply treated the Report of General Information as sufficient proof without any meaningful analysis.

The Outcome

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs agreed that the Board provided an inadequate statement of reasons or bases. Both parties filed a Joint Motion for Remand, and the CAVC granted it. The Court vacated the Board’s October 2025 decision and sent the case back for proper readjudication. On remand, the Board must address the representative’s arguments about the disputed withdrawal documents. The Board must also apply the DeLisio standard to determine whether any valid withdrawal occurred.

Why This Victory Matters

This remand gives our client the opportunity to secure an earlier effective date for PTSD benefits. An earlier effective date could mean years of retroactive compensation our client rightfully deserves. This case highlights the importance of holding the Board accountable when it ignores evidence and arguments. Veterans should never lose benefits because VA misfiled another person’s documents into their claims folder.

If you need help appealing a VA disability decision, contact Werner Hoffman Greig & Garcia today.