In this rehearing decision, the Court revisited its earlier dismissal of Stokes’ appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The underlying dispute involved a reopened claim for service connection for multiple sclerosis and whether Stokes had filed a valid Notice of Disagreement after the Veterans Judicial Review Act’s effective date. The Court focused on a VA Form 1-646 submitted by Stokes’ representative, which stated disagreement with the VA’s “repeated denial[s]” of the claim.

The Court held that the Notice of Disagreement definition in 38 C.F.R. § 19.118 was a lenient standard and that a filing need not use special wording. It further held that the Court may consider jurisdictional facts outside the Board record when determining whether a communication should reasonably be construed as expressing disagreement with a VA adjudicative decision. Based on the affidavit and the Secretary’s response, the Court found that Stokes and his representative knew of the hearing officer’s decision when the form was filed, making the communication a valid NOD that conferred jurisdiction.

The decision matters because it confirms a practical and claimant-friendly approach to NOD construction in the early VJRA era. It emphasizes substance over form and protects appeals where the claimant’s written submission, read in context, clearly signals disagreement with the adverse VA decision.

A post-November 18, 1988 written communication is a valid Notice of Disagreement for jurisdictional purposes if, in context, it can reasonably be construed as expressing dissatisfaction with an adjudicative determination and a desire for review; the Court may consider jurisdictional facts outside the Board record when necessary to make that determination.

Informal or inartful disagreement language can still preserve appellate rights if it clearly targets a VA decision. Advocates should focus on whether the writing, read in context, shows dissatisfaction with the specific adjudication at issue.

Stokes provides an early and important interpretation of the VJRA jurisdictional framework. It prevents overly technical dismissals when the claimant’s submission plainly disputes the VA’s decision, even if the filing does not look like a formal appeal document.

Treating an informal disagreement as insufficient despite language that reasonably conveys disagreement with the VA decision.

A veteran submits a representative statement saying he disagrees with the VA’s repeated denials of a claim, but VA later argues the filing is not a formal NOD. Under Stokes, that filing may still qualify if the context shows it was directed at the adverse adjudication.

Use Stokes to argue that VA and the Court must read disagreement filings liberally and in context, especially when jurisdiction turns on whether a post-VJRA communication qualifies as an NOD.

Whitt v. Derwinski, Erspamer v. Derwinski