## Facts

- A veteran sought VA disability compensation for post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD).
- During claim development, medical evidence attributed his symptoms to generalized anxiety disorder rather than PTSD.
- The VA regional office denied service connection for PTSD.
- The Board of Veterans’ Appeals denied service connection for PTSD but separately “identified and referred” a potential anxiety-disorder service-connection matter to the regional office for initial action, instead of remanding it.
- In an earlier appeal, a single-judge decision affirmed the PTSD denial and modified the Board’s “referral” to function as a remand requiring VA action on the anxiety-disorder matter.
- During subsequent attorney-fee litigation, the court questioned whether it had jurisdiction to review the referred anxiety-disorder matter and took the jurisdiction question en banc.

## Issues

1. Whether the court has jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) to review and revise a portion of a Board disposition that merely “refers” an issue to the agency of original jurisdiction.
2. Whether the court may convert a Board “referral” into a “remand” when the Board has not issued a final decision on the referred matter.

## Decision

- The en banc court held it lacked jurisdiction to review or alter the Board’s referral of the anxiety-disorder matter because a referral is not a final Board decision under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a).
- The court vacated the portion of the prior single-judge decision that had modified the Board’s referral into a remand.
- The appeal, as to the anxiety-disorder issue, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.
- The court recognized jurisdiction over the Board’s PTSD denial because it was a final adverse decision.

## Legal Principles

- The court’s jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C. § 7252(a) extends only to final “decisions” of the Board that grant, deny, dismiss, or otherwise finally determine a claim for benefits.
- A Board “referral” is a preliminary action directing initial adjudication by the agency of original jurisdiction; it does not change the claimant’s legal status and is not appealable.
- A remand differs from a referral because it concerns a matter within the Board’s jurisdiction and is tied to the Board’s disposition of issues properly before it.
- The court may not create jurisdiction by recharacterizing a Board referral as a remand; the statutory authority to “affirm, modify, reverse, or remand” presupposes jurisdiction over a Board decision on the issue.

## Conclusion

The court held that a Board referral is not a final, reviewable Board decision, so the court cannot review it or convert it into a remand; judicial review must await an actual Board merits determination on the referred claim.


Young v. Shinseki, 25 Vet. App. 201 (Vet. App. 2012) (en banc)