Keith Roberts received service connection and compensation for PTSD based on a claimed in-service stressor involving the death of a friend, Gary Holland. After an Inspector General investigation concluded that Roberts’s account of that event was not supported by the service record or witness statements, VA proposed and then completed severance of benefits on the ground that the original award was based on fraud. The Board also found clear and unmistakable error in the original award, though the Federal Circuit noted that Roberts did not challenge every aspect of the Veterans Court’s decision.

On appeal, Roberts argued that VA had to proceed under the Program Fraud Civil Remedies Act and refer the matter to an administrative law judge, and that VA was required to consider a separate shore-patrol incident as an alternate stressor before severing benefits. The Federal Circuit rejected both arguments. It held that the PFCRA is not an exclusive remedy, that its jurisdictional cap barred its use where the fraudulent claims exceeded $150,000, and that nothing in the statute or regulations required VA to use PFCRA procedures instead of its own severance authority. The court also held that VA was not required to identify or adjudicate alternate stressors in the severance proceeding because the original PTSD award was based on a single stressor later found fraudulent; Roberts could pursue a separate claim based on other stressors if appropriate.

VA may sever service-connected benefits based on fraud under its own severance regulations, and the PFCRA does not displace that authority or require referral to an ALJ, especially where the fraudulent claim exceeds the PFCRA’s $150,000 jurisdictional cap.

Fraud-based severance is a distinct VA remedy. Advocates should not assume PFCRA procedures are mandatory, and a severance challenge must account for whether the original grant rested on the specific fraudulent basis identified by VA.

The decision clarifies the relationship between VA severance authority and the PFCRA, limiting arguments that VA must use PFCRA procedures before severing benefits for fraud. It also narrows severance disputes by holding that VA need not explore alternate stressors in the severance case when the award was granted on one fraudulent stressor.

Assuming VA must proceed under the PFCRA or must adjudicate alternate stressors before severing benefits based on fraud.

A veteran obtained PTSD service connection based on a single reported combat stressor that later proves fabricated. VA proposes severance after an investigation. Under Roberts, VA may sever under its own regulations without first bringing a PFCRA action and need not develop unrelated alternative stressors within the severance proceeding.

Use this case to defend fraud-based severance actions and to argue that PFCRA is not the exclusive procedural path. It is also useful to rebut arguments that VA must preserve or develop alternate stressors in the severance case itself.

Roberts v. Shinseki