## Facts

- Nicholas Quartuccio served on active duty in the U.S. Army from 1977 to 1978.
- In 1994, he sought VA disability compensation for paranoid schizophrenia as service-connected.
- VA advised him to submit evidence linking his condition to service; although schizophrenia was shown, VA denied service connection for lack of a nexus.
- In 2000, Quartuccio disputed the denial; VA stated the claim could be reopened only with “new and material evidence” and later declined to reopen.
- Quartuccio appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals during the period when the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) took effect, revising VA’s notice and duty-to-assist obligations.
- The Board affirmed the refusal to reopen and found VA’s letters sufficient to satisfy VCAA notice requirements.

## Issues

1. Whether, under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), VA satisfied the VCAA duty to notify by sending general letters that did not specify what evidence was needed to substantiate reopening/service connection and who (VA or the claimant) was responsible for obtaining it.

## Decision

- The court vacated the Board’s decision and remanded.
- The court held that § 5103(a) requires VA to provide specific notice of the evidence needed to substantiate the claim and to delineate which evidence VA will obtain and which the claimant must provide.
- The court concluded VA’s general correspondence instructing the claimant to submit evidence (including “new and material evidence”) did not meet VCAA notice requirements.

## Legal Principles

- Under 38 U.S.C. § 5103(a), VA must notify a claimant of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate the claim.
- VCAA notice must identify the portion of evidence VA will obtain and the portion the claimant is expected to provide.
- Generic statements directing a claimant to submit evidence, without assigning responsibilities for obtaining it, are inadequate.
- When the record lacks adequate § 5103(a) notice, the proper remedy is vacatur and remand for compliant notice and readjudication after an opportunity to respond.

## Conclusion

The court required claim-specific VCAA notice that explains both what evidence is needed and who is responsible for obtaining it, and it vacated and remanded where VA’s letters failed to provide that allocation of responsibilities.


Quartuccio v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 183 (2002)