Analysis of the CAVC Ruling in Gray v. McDonald

On April 23, the Court of Appeals for Veteran Claims made a ruling in Gray v. McDonald. Mr. Gray's claims were Vacated and Remanded "for further proceedings consistent with this decision." What exactly was the decision? I'm afraid that's a bit disappointing.

Among other things, the CAVC included the following statements or concepts in their write-up:

So, basically, what comes out of this is:
1) The court rejected the VA's definitions and distinctions of inland waterways and river mouths;
2) But the Court is allowing VA to rethink and redefine inland waterways and river mouths as based on consistent and well-defined criteria.

At this time, BWNVVA has the following observation: the CAVC acknowledged that the VA's rulings identifying inland water and river mouths based on current definitions are "arbitrary and capricious" but it avoided directing the VA to follow some specific CAVC-defined rules. By handing this back to the VA, they are granting the VA some slack that is, in our opinion, unwarranted. So the VA gets another crack at developing regulations that possibly continue to work against the veteran but are more to the liking of the CAVC.

See the CAVC Documents here: CAVC Website under Orders and Opinions -> Recent Decisions. 13-3339 - Robert H. Gray vs. Robert A. McDonald

John Rossie, Executive Director
Blue Water Navy Vietnam Veterans Association