The appellant sought death pension benefits as the surviving spouse of a deceased veteran. The Board denied the claim after concluding that a common-law marriage had not been established under Alabama law, relying heavily on the veteran’s repeated VA statements indicating that he was not married. The Court vacated that decision. It held that the Board failed to address material favorable evidence, including affidavits and statements describing the parties’ cohabitation and public recognition of the relationship as husband and wife. The Court explained that Alabama common-law marriage requires capacity, present agreement, public recognition, and cohabitation, and that consent may be inferred from the circumstances. Because the Board focused on the veteran’s VA forms without explaining why those statements were more probative than the contrary evidence, the Board’s reasons or bases were inadequate. The Court remanded for readjudication under the governing Alabama law and an adequate statement of reasons or bases. The concurrences disagreed with the majority’s view of the threshold burden for claimant status and emphasized the duty to assist once a well-grounded claim is submitted.

Where entitlement depends on surviving-spouse status under state common-law marriage law, the Board must consider all competent evidence bearing on the marriage and provide an adequate reasons-or-bases explanation if it discounts favorable lay and documentary evidence in favor of contrary evidence.

The Board cannot deny surviving-spouse status by cherry-picking one set of records while ignoring affidavits, community reputation evidence, and other proof relevant under state marriage law. This case is a strong reasons-or-bases authority in marital-status disputes.

Scott is a practical remand case for surviving-spouse claims because it reinforces that state law governs marriage validity and that the Board must engage with all evidence, not just VA paperwork. Advocates can use it to challenge denials that fail to analyze public recognition, cohabitation, and corroborating statements.

Inadequate Reasons or Bases [Procedural Error]

A claimant for DIC submits multiple affidavits showing that she and the veteran lived together and were known publicly as husband and wife, but the Board denies the claim because the veteran checked ‘not married’ on later VA forms. Scott supports remand for failure to discuss the favorable evidence and explain the weighing under state law.

Use Scott to argue that the Board must analyze the totality of evidence on common-law marriage or surviving-spouse status and must explain why it finds administrative forms more persuasive than lay statements, community reputation, or other corroboration. It is also useful when the record suggests VA should obtain corroborating benefits records from another agency.

Aguilar v. Derwinski, Fletcher v. Derwinski, Murphy v. Derwinski, Murincsak v. Derwinski, Masors v. Derwinski