The appellant sought review of a Board denial of service connection for paranoid schizophrenia. The Secretary moved to dismiss, arguing that the notice of disagreement necessary to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction had been filed before November 18, 1988, the effective-date threshold in the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act. The Court examined the record and concluded that the October 1985 and February 1986 submissions could not support jurisdiction, and that the later VA Form 1-9 also could not qualify as a timely notice of disagreement because it was outside the statutory one-year period tied to the underlying agency decision.

The Court further rejected the appellant’s constitutional argument that the VJRA’s jurisdictional cutoff violated due process. Applying rational-basis review, the Court held that Congress had legitimate reasons to limit initial judicial review to newer cases, including preventing an immediate backlog and preserving finality in VA adjudications. Because the cutoff had a reasonable basis, the Court found no constitutional defect and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

The Court’s jurisdiction under the Veterans’ Judicial Review Act is limited to cases in which a valid notice of disagreement was filed on or after November 18, 1988, and that jurisdictional cutoff is constitutionally permissible under rational-basis review.

Advocates must confirm that the NOD triggering a Court appeal falls within the VJRA jurisdictional window; otherwise, the Court lacks authority to review the case. The decision also shows that constitutional challenges to the VJRA cutoff are unlikely to succeed.

Strott is an early jurisdiction case that reinforces the strict filing-date requirements governing access to judicial review. It remains useful when assessing whether the Court can hear older claims and when briefing challenges to legacy procedural posture.

A veteran files a Board appeal today, but the only valid NOD in the record was submitted before November 18, 1988. Under Strott, the Court must dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.

Use Strott to brief jurisdictional motions where the record shows an NOD predating the VJRA cutoff, or to oppose arguments that an older claim can be brought into Court review based on later filings that do not independently satisfy the statutory timing rules.

Doub v. Derwinski, Skinner v. Derwinski, Whitt v. Derwinski, Mathews v. de Castro, United States R.R. Retirement Bd. v. Fritz, Vance v. Bradley, Flemming v. Nestor, University of Tenn. v. Elliott, United States v. Utah Constr. and Mining Co.