## Facts

- A veteran sought VA disability compensation for PTSD.
- VA granted a 70% PTSD rating with an effective date in 1989.
- The veteran later sought an increased rating and an earlier effective date.
- The Board ultimately awarded a 100% PTSD rating, but set the effective date in 1990 rather than earlier.
- The veteran collaterally attacked prior final adjudications by alleging clear and unmistakable error (CUE), asserting the Board ignored evidence and misapplied governing law in assigning the later effective date.

## Issues

1. Whether generalized allegations that the Board ignored evidence, failed to adequately discuss evidence, or misapplied law sufficiently plead CUE in a prior final VA decision.
2. Whether disagreement with how the Board weighed or evaluated the evidence can constitute CUE.

## Decision

- The court held the veteran did not state a valid CUE claim.
- The court determined the allegations were broad and conclusory and largely challenged the weighing and evaluation of evidence.
- The court rejected the CUE challenge as legally insufficient and left the prior final decision undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- CUE is a collateral attack on a final decision and is “very specific and rare.”
- CUE requires an “undebatable” error of fact or law that would have manifestly changed the outcome at the time of the prior decision.
- CUE review is limited to the record and law that existed when the challenged decision was made; later-developed evidence is irrelevant.
- A disagreement about how facts were weighed or evaluated cannot, as a matter of law, establish CUE.
- A CUE motion must identify the specific factual or legal error and explain why the result would have been manifestly different but for that error; broad assertions such as failure to follow regulations, denial of due process, or inadequate reasons and bases are insufficient unless CUE is apparent on its face.

## Conclusion

The court confirmed that CUE is an exceptionally narrow doctrine requiring specific, outcome-determinative, undebatable error on the contemporaneous record; generalized complaints about ignored evidence, inadequate explanation, or evidentiary weighing do not meet the pleading or substantive requirements for revising a final VA decision.


Fugo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 40 (1993)