David A. Hamill v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
DAVID A. HAMILL,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2024-1543
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 22-7344, Judge Joseph L. Toth,
Judge Scott Laurer, Judge Grant Jaquith.
______________________
Decided: February 4, 2026
______________________
RENEE A. BURBANK, National Veterans Legal Services
Program, Arlington, VA, argued for claimant-appellant.
Also represented by RYAN KELLEY, BARTON FRANK
STICHMAN, I; YELENA DUTERTE, Veterans Legal Clinic, Uni-
versity of Illinois Chicago School of Law, Chicago, IL.
GALINA I. FOMENKOVA, Commercial Litigation Branch,
Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash-
ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre-
sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD,
PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 1 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 1 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 2
KRISCH, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart-
ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before MOORE, Chief Judge, CHEN and STARK, Circuit
Judges.
MOORE, Chief Judge.
David Hamill appeals an order of the Court of Appeals
for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) (1) dismissing his pe-
tition for extraordinary relief in the nature of a writ of man-
damus to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
to adjudicate his claim for a character of discharge deter-
mination, and (2) denying his request for class certification
and class action (RCA). For the following reasons, we va-
cate the Veterans Court’s order and remand for further
proceedings consistent with this opinion.
BACKGROUND
Mr. Hamill served in the United States Marine Corps
from 2009 through 2013 and was discharged from service
under “Other Than Honorable” conditions. J.A. 26. Upon
discharge, Mr. Hamill sought disability compensation for
post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), other psychiatric is-
sues, and back pain. J.A. 28. In 2014, the VA denied his
application because his Other Than Honorable discharge
barred “all benefits administered by the [VA] under . . . 38
C.F.R. [§] 3.12(c)(6) and 38 U.S.C. [§] 5303(a).” J.A. 36–38.
The VA noted, however, that Mr. Hamill was still “entitled
to health care under Chapter 17 of Title 38, U.S.C. for any
disabilities determined to be service connected.” Id. at 36.
Mr. Hamill did not appeal. Appellant Br. 5.
In 2017, Mr. Hamill filed a new claim for disability ben-
efits based on PTSD and back pain again, along with other
conditions. J.A. 39–43. The VA construed the claim as an
implicit attempt to reopen his 2014 character of discharge
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 2 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 2 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 3
determination and explicitly denied it. J.A. 45–48; Gov’t
Br. 6. Again, Mr. Hamill did not appeal. Appellant Br. 5.
In 2021, Mr. Hamill filed (1) another claim seeking
compensation for the same disabilities in his 2017 filing
and (2) a new claim for several other disabilities.
J.A. 49–50; J.A. 51–55. The Government does not dispute
“Mr. Hamill implicitly sought to reopen the prior charac-
ter-of-discharge determination that otherwise precluded
payment of veterans compensation.” Gov’t Br. 7. Without
mentioning his pending claim for a change in the character
of his discharge determination, the VA granted service con-
nection for PTSD and denied service connection for the rest
of the claimed disabilities. J.A. 56–65.
In 2022, Mr. Hamill’s attorney sent a letter asking the
VA to “make a decision regarding [Mr. Hamill’s] discharge
characterization” because it failed to do so in its 2021 deci-
sion, leaving him with no appealable decision. J.A. 66. In
response, the VA told Mr. Hamill he should contact the
Service Department to change his character of discharge or
apply for a correction of military records. J.A. 67–75.
Mr. Hamill then petitioned the Veterans Court for a writ of
mandamus to compel the VA to adjudicate his character of
discharge claim. J.A. 91–100. In March 2023, the Secre-
tary moved to dismiss the petition as moot based on a Feb-
ruary 2023 letter the VA sent Mr. Hamill explicitly finding
he had not submitted new and material evidence to war-
rant reopening the VA’s 2014 character of discharge deci-
sion. J.A. 3. On the same day, Mr. Hamill filed a request
for class certification and class action (RCA). J.A. 108–36.
The RCA acknowledged the February 2023 letter satisfied
his request for an appealable character of discharge deci-
sion but argued his petition was not moot because certain
mootness exceptions applied. J.A. 117–18.
A divided panel of the Veterans Court dismissed
Mr. Hamill’s case because it concluded his petition was
moot and no exception applied. J.A. 4–9. Central to its
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 3 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 3 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 4
conclusion was the majority’s determination that Mr. Ha-
mill’s request to reopen the VA’s 2014 character of dis-
charge determination was implicitly denied by the VA’s
2021 service connection decision (i.e., before Mr. Hamill
filed his mandamus petition). Id. The dissent disagreed
that the implicit denial doctrine was applicable and would
have held Mr. Hamill’s petition was not moot. J.A. 11–19.
Mr. Hamill appeals.1 We have jurisdiction under 38 U.S.C.
§§ 7292(a), (c).
DISCUSSION
Our jurisdiction to review a decision of the Veterans
Court is limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d
1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). We may “review and decide
any challenge to the validity of any statute or regulation or
any interpretation thereof . . . and . . . interpret constitu-
tional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and
necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). “Except to
the extent that a constitutional issue is presented, [we]
may not review ‘a challenge to a factual determination,’ or
‘a challenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of
a particular case.’” Goodman, 870 F.3d at 1385 (quoting
38 U.S.C. § 7292(d)(2)(A)–(B)). We review the Veterans
Court’s legal conclusions de novo. Id.
On appeal, Mr. Hamill argues the Veterans Court le-
gally erred by applying the implicit denial doctrine to de-
termine his petition was mooted by the VA’s 2021 decision,
which is subject to the Veterans Appeals Improvement and
Modernization Act of 2017, Pub. L. No. 115-55, 131 Stat.
1105—commonly referred to as the “Appeals Moderniza-
tion Act” (AMA). J.A. 56–65. In particular, he argues
1 In addition to the parties’ briefs, we received ami-
cus briefs from the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United
States, Dkt. 24, and the National Law School Veterans
Clinic Consortium, Dkt. 59.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 4 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 4 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 5
(1) the AMA overruled the pre-AMA implicit denial doc-
trine, and (2) even under the pre-AMA framework, the im-
plicit denial doctrine cannot apply to a request to reopen a
character of discharge determination when the VA pro-
vided only a service connection decision for the purposes of
health care benefits. Appellant Br. 13–34. We hold that
under the AMA, a veteran’s claims can no longer be implic-
itly denied.2 We accordingly vacate the Veterans Court’s
order dismissing Mr. Hamill’s petition and denying his
RCA, and remand for the court to reconsider the mootness
issue.
I. Implicit Denials Under the AMA
This case presents an important issue of first impres-
sion: the role of implicit denials under the AMA. We begin
2 Though we hold the implicit denial doctrine does
not apply under the AMA, we are skeptical that it should
apply in this case even under the pre-AMA framework.
Our implicit denial doctrine precedent suggests that, in or-
der for the denial of one claim to implicitly deny another,
the two claims must be factually the same or factually sim-
ilar. See, e.g., Steele v. Collins, 135 F.4th 1353, 1361–62
(Fed. Cir. 2025) (implicitly denying service connected ben-
efits for headaches based on a denial of compensable ser-
vice connection for head injury); Cogburn v. McDonald, 809
F.3d 1232, 1235–37 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (implicitly denying ser-
vice connected benefits for psychiatric disability based on
denial of service connected benefits for PTSD); Hampton v.
McDonough, 68 F.4th 1376, 1380–82 (Fed. Cir. 2023), cert.
denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024) (implicitly denying total disa-
bility and individual unemployability claims based on de-
nial of an increase in disability rating); Adams v. Shinseki,
568 F.3d 956, 962–65 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (implicitly denying
service connected benefits for a condition secondary to
rheumatic heart disease based on denial of rheumatic
heart disease).
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 5 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 5 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 6
by summarizing our pre-AMA implicit denial doctrine,
then discuss the AMA’s changes to the veterans appeals
framework, and finally analyze whether Congress intended
the VA to be able to implicitly deny claims when it enacted
the AMA. We conclude that Congress eliminated the judi-
cially-created implicit denial doctrine when it enacted the
AMA.
A. The Implicit Denial Doctrine
“The ‘implicit denial’ rule provides that, in certain cir-
cumstances, a claim for benefits will be deemed to have
been denied, and thus finally adjudicated, even if the [VA]
did not expressly address that claim in its decision.” Ad-
ams v. Shinseki, 568 F.3d 956, 961 (Fed. Cir. 2009). As we
recently explained, the condition precedent for the applica-
tion of this doctrine is that:
[The] regional office decision “discusses a claim in
terms sufficient to put the claimant on notice that
it was being considered and rejected . . . even if the
formal adjudicative language does not specifically
deny that claim.”
Steele v. Collins, 135 F.4th 1353, 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2025)
(quoting Adams, 568 F.3d at 962–63). “[T]he key question
in the implicit denial inquiry is whether it would be clear
to a reasonable person that the [VA’s] action that expressly
refers to one claim is intended to dispose of others as well.”
Adams, 568 F.3d at 964. Accordingly, we have stated that
“the implicit denial rule is, at bottom, a notice provision,”
id. at 965, applying only when a claimant received “ade-
quate notice of, and an opportunity to respond to, the [VA’s]
decision,” Steele, 135 F.4th at 1358 (quoting Adams, 568
F.3d at 965); see also Cogburn v. McDonald, 809 F.3d 1232,
1236 (Fed. Cir. 2016). While we upheld the application of
the implicit denial rule to several veterans claims pre-da-
ting the AMA, we have not addressed the applicability of
the doctrine to claims subject to the AMA regime. See, e.g.,
Steele, 135 F.4th at 1361–62; Adams, 568 F.3d at 962–65;
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 6 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 6 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 7
Cogburn, 809 F.3d at 1235–37; Deshotel v. Nicholson, 457
F.3d 1258, 1261–62 (Fed. Cir. 2006); Hampton v.
McDonough, 68 F.4th 1376, 1380–82 (Fed. Cir. 2023), cert.
denied, 144 S. Ct. 570 (2024).
B. The Appeals Modernization Act
Congress enacted the AMA in 2017 “to reform the
rights and processes relating to appeals of decisions re-
garding claims for benefits under the laws administered by
the Secretary of Veterans Affairs . . . .” Pub. L. No. 115-55,
131 Stat. 1105 (2017). Through the AMA, Congress over-
hauled the legacy appeals system and created a “new ap-
peals system.” Id., 131 Stat. 1115. This new appeals
system “appl[ies] to all claims for which notice of a decision
under section 5104 of title 38, United States Code, is pro-
vided by the Secretary of Veterans Affairs on or after” Feb-
ruary 19, 2019.3 Id.; VA Claims and Appeals
Modernization, 84 Fed. Reg. 2449 (Feb. 7, 2019).
Prior to the AMA, a veteran who disagreed with a VA
regional office (RO) decision had a single path for appeal.
First, the veteran would file a Notice of Disagreement to
the RO. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.20, 19.21. The RO would then pro-
vide the veteran a Statement of the Case (SOC), which had
to be “complete enough to allow the appellant to present
written and/or oral arguments before the Board of Veter-
ans’ Appeals” and had to contain:
(a) A summary of the evidence in the case relating
to the issue or issues with which the appellant or
representative has expressed disagreement;
(b) A summary of the applicable laws and regula-
tions, with appropriate citations, and a discussion
3 This undisputedly includes Mr. Hamill’s 2021 VA
decision.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 7 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 7 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 8
of how such laws and regulations affect the deter-
mination; and
(c) The determination of the agency of original ju-
risdiction on each issue and the reasons for each
such determination with respect to which disagree-
ment has been expressed.
38 C.F.R. § 19.29. Next, to perfect his appeal, the veteran
would have to file a Substantive Appeal form “set[ting] out
specific arguments relating to errors of fact or law made by
the agency of original jurisdiction in reaching the determi-
nation, or determinations, being appealed.” 38 C.F.R.
§ 19.22.
Now, under the AMA regime, a veteran dissatisfied
with a VA decision has a broader range of options to choose
from based on his needs. These options include seeking
higher-level review, filing a supplemental claim, or filing a
notice of disagreement to pursue one of three appeal lanes
before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board)—some of
which allow for new evidence, a hearing, or both; others
which do not. 38 U.S.C. §§ 5104C, 7105(b)(3). SOCs and
Substantive Appeal forms are no longer part of the appeals
process, id., so the VA’s initial decision plays a key role in
informing veterans which review option to pursue. See VA
Claims and Appeal Modernization, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,818,
39,820 (Aug. 10, 2018) (“Enhanced decision notices will al-
low claimants and their representatives to make more in-
formed choices about whether to seek further review and,
if so, which of the new review lanes best fits the claimant’s
needs . . . .”).
Recognizing the importance of the VA’s initial decisions
in veterans’ decision-making under the new appeals sys-
tem, Congress sought to enhance the quality of decisions
the VA issues to veterans regarding their claims. This is
evidenced clearly by the statutory text, which Congress
amended to establish a heightened notice requirement for
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 8 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 8 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 9
VA decisions. Both pre-AMA and AMA versions of 38
U.S.C. § 5401(a) require that:
In the case of a decision by the Secretary under sec-
tion 511 of this title affecting the provision of ben-
efits to a claimant, the Secretary shall, on a timely
basis, provide to the claimant (and to the claim-
ant’s representative) notice of such decision. The
notice shall include an explanation of the proce-
dure for obtaining review of the decision.
38 U.S.C. § 5401(a) (2016); 38 U.S.C. § 5401(a) (2017). Un-
der the pre-AMA version of 38 U.S.C. § 5401, however, the
notice requirements were relatively sparse, stating that:
In any case where the Secretary denies a benefit
sought, the notice required by subsection (a) shall
also include (1) a statement of the reasons for the
decision, and (2) a summary of the evidence consid-
ered by the Secretary.
38 U.S.C. § 5401(b) (2016). By contrast, Congress signifi-
cantly heightened the statutory notice requirements in the
AMA regime, demanding that:
(b) Each notice provided under subsection (a) shall
also include all of the following:
(1) Identification of the issues adjudicated.
(2) A summary of the evidence considered
by the Secretary.
(3) A summary of the applicable laws and
regulations.
(4) Identification of findings favorable to
the claimant.
(5) In the case of a denial, identification of
elements not satisfied leading to the denial.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 9 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 9 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 10
(6) An explanation of how to obtain or ac-
cess evidence used in making the decision.
(7) If applicable, identification of the crite-
ria that must be satisfied to grant service
connection or the next higher level of com-
pensation.
38 U.S.C. § 5104(b) (2017).4
The legislative history surrounding the adoption of the
AMA consistently reenforces Congress’ intent to require
clear and explicit notice. For example, the Senate report
on the AMA states the AMA would require the VA to “en-
hance the information included in notifications of decisions
on claims for benefits” and “modify [the VA’s] claims deci-
sion notices to ensure they are clearer and more detailed.”
S. REP. NO. 115-126, at 6, 31 (2017) (emphases added). As
the report explains, “[t]his notice would help Veterans and
their advocates make informed choices as to which a [sic]
review option makes the most sense.” Id. at 31. The House
report similarly states:
To help veterans better understand VA’s decision
on their claims, the bill includes a statutory re-
quirement that VA issue detailed decision notifica-
tion letters. Under the bill, a decision letter would
include a summary of the evidence, a summary of
applicable laws and regulations, an explanation of
how the veteran may obtain a copy of the evidence
used in making the decision, and VA’s favorable
findings, if any. If the veteran’s claim is denied,
the letter would also explain why the claim was
4 Congress further amended Section 5104 in 2022
but did not make any changes to the relevant text in
§ 5104(a)–(b). Accordingly, for purposes of this opinion, we
cite the current version of Section 5104 when discussing
the “AMA version” of the statute.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 10 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 10 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 11
denied, and describe the evidence VA would need
to grant service connection or the next higher-level
of compensation. The intent of this provision is to
help better inform the veteran’s decision regarding
whether to appeal VA’s rating decision.”
H.R. REP. NO. 115-135, at 3 (2017) (emphases added). Nu-
merous statements from both legislators and stakeholders
during the House’s 2017 legislative hearing (some of which
are reproduced below) emphasize the same point:
 “[Y]ou certainly shouldn’t have to hire a lawyer
when you are a veteran” to “demystify . . . very
vague notice.” Legislative Hearing on the Veterans
Appeals Improvement and Modernization Act of
2017: Hearing Before the H. Comm. On Veterans’
Affairs, 115th Cong. 22 (2017) (statement of Rep.
Elizabeth Esty).
 “[T]he bill would require VA to modify its claims
decision notices to ensure they are clearer and more
detailed. This notice would help Veterans and their
advocates make informed choices as to which re-
view option makes the most sense.” Id. at 33 (state-
ment of David C. Spickler, Exec. In Charge, Acting
Vice Chairman, Board of Veterans’ Appeals).
 “I can’t stress the importance of improved notifica-
tion notices enough. It is transparency, and it arms
veterans to navigate their own benefits. I can’t
stress it enough.” Id. at 22 (statement of Ryan M.
Gallucci, Dir., Nat’l Legislative Serv., Veterans of
Foreign Wars of the U.S.).
 “The declining quality of VA rating decisions and
notice has been cited by stakeholders numerous
times over the years as the primary problem in the
claims process. The participants in VA’s appeals
summit agreed that detailed notice of the rating de-
cision is critical to making an informed decision
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 11 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 11 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 12
regarding further review. Proper notice allows a
veteran to understand the reasons for the underly-
ing rating decision and enables an advocate to pro-
vide a veteran with the best possible advice on the
evidence needed to prove a claim. Because the new
framework detailed in this bill would offer a vet-
eran three choices after a denial of benefits, quality
notice is critical.” Id. at 51 (statement of Nat’l Org.
of Veterans’ Advocates, Inc.).
There really is no room for disagreement. The AMA
not only changed the overall structure of the veterans ap-
peals system but deliberately and clearly heightened the
notice requirement for VA’s initial decisions beyond what
was previously acceptable in the pre-AMA regime.
C. Impact of the AMA on the Implicit Denial Doctrine
In view of the substantial changes to the veterans ap-
peals system detailed above, Mr. Hamill argues the AMA
is fundamentally incompatible with our pre-AMA judi-
cially-created implicit denial doctrine such that his 2021
VA decision—which addressed only the service-connection
issue for his claimed conditions—could not implicitly deny
his request to reopen his discharge determination. Appel-
lant Br. 5, 14–27. We agree with Mr. Hamill that it was
legal error for the Veterans Court to conclude otherwise.
Correctly interpreted, the AMA version of 38 U.S.C.
§ 5104(b) precludes the VA from implicitly denying veter-
ans claims.
“We assume Congress means what it says and says
what it means.” Metro. Area EMS Auth. v. Sec’y of Veterans
Affs., 122 F.4th 1339, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2024). When Con-
gress amended 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b) to require VA decisions
to include an “[i]dentification of the issues adjudicated,” we
assume Congress meant for VA decisions to include pre-
cisely that. Indeed, even the VA has recognized, by regu-
lation, that the requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b) must
be met by “[w]ritten notification.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.103 (2019).
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 12 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 12 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 13
It would make little sense for the implicit denial doctrine—
a judicial construct created under the legacy system—to
proceed unchanged in light of this clear statutory directive
for explicit notice of what issues a decision adjudicates. See
Nw. Airlines, Inc. v. Transp. Workers Union of Am., AFL-
CIO, 451 U.S. 77, 95 n.34 (1981) (“[O]nce Congress ad-
dresses a subject, even a subject previously governed by
federal common law, the justification for lawmaking by the
federal courts is greatly diminished. Thereafter, the task
of the federal courts is to interpret and apply statutory law,
not to create common law.”) And while the Government
argues the implicit denial doctrine is not affected by the
AMA’s change to 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b) because “the doctrine
was never about section 5104(b),” Gov’t Br. 35, we do not
agree. We cannot and will not flout the statute’s express
requirements. Through the AMA, Congress not only
changed the structure of the veterans appeals system by
eliminating the SOC and providing additional review op-
tions; it deliberately chose to require that veterans receive
explicit, enhanced notice in the VA’s initial decisions to en-
able veterans to choose an option best-suited to their needs.
We must respect this legislative choice.
The Government does not argue (as surely it cannot)
that Mr. Hamill’s 2021 VA decision was compliant with the
AMA’s detailed notice requirements of 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b).
Instead, the Government argues Mr. Hamill should have
challenged any alleged noncompliance by pursuing higher-
level review or filing an appeal with the Board (i.e., rather
than seeking mandamus to obtain an appealable decision,
which the Government claims Mr. Hamill already had
based on the implicit denial doctrine). Gov’t Br. 29–30. We
agree there is a distinction between the minimum require-
ments for an appealable decision and one that fully com-
plies with 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b). But for a decision to be
appealable, it must still put the veteran on notice that his
issue has been adjudicated. After all, no veteran can ap-
peal a decision he does not understand to have been made.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 13 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 13 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 14
Accordingly, we hold that under the AMA, a veteran has
an appealable decision for a particular issue only if the de-
cision gives him explicit notice that the issue is being adju-
dicated and how it is being decided.5,6 Mr. Hamill’s 2021
5 To be sure, we do not hold that any magic language
or format is required. For example, a decision that explic-
itly identifies all the issues adjudicated but proceeds to
deny all claims without separately naming them would
likely be sufficient for the veteran to have an appealable
decision as to those issues—even if it would not be compli-
ant with the remainder of the notice requirements detailed
in § 5104(b). Under such circumstances, the veteran could
appeal the failure to comply with the other requirements of
§ 5104(b) (e.g., the requirement that the decision include
“[a]n explanation of how to obtain or access evidence used
in making the decision” or the requirement that the deci-
sion include an “identification of elements not satisfied
leading to the denial”). Congress quite intentionally re-
quired that AMA decisions contain such detailed infor-
mation because this information would likely impact which
of the many review options the veteran ought to pursue.
6 Once a veteran receives an appealable decision for
a particular issue, we agree with the Government that he
can, and must, timely seek higher-level review or appeal of
that issue to the Board—rather than petition the Veterans
Court for mandamus relief—to challenge compliance with
38 U.S.C. § 5104(b). This is true even if the VA’s decision
is appealable as to some issues but not others. “[I]t is es-
tablished that the extraordinary [writ of mandamus] can-
not be used as substitutes for appeals, . . . and whatever
may be done without the writ may not be done with it.”
Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland, 346 U.S. 379, 383
(1953). Accordingly, a veteran cannot obtain mandamus
relief at the Veterans Court after failing to timely chal-
lenge an appealable, but arguably non-compliant, VA
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 14 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 14 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 15
VA decision did not meet this explicit notice requirement
and could not, as a matter of law, implicitly deny his re-
quest to reopen his character of discharge determination.
The Government raises concerns with Congress’ elimi-
nation of the judicially-created implicit denial rule, many
of which are overstated. For example, the Government ar-
gues ending implicit denials would route claimants away
from the AMA’s statutory process for appellate review in
favor of “drastic and extraordinary” mandamus relief and
lead to “indefinite waiting” by claimants that would “create
an unknown number of pending claims” and detract from
the AMA’s accountability objectives. Gov’t Br. 32–33. All
of this, however, is entirely avoidable if the VA fulfills its
statutory obligations and follows Congress’ simple and
clear directive to include an “[i]dentification of the issues
adjudicated” in its initial decisions. 38 U.S.C. § 5104(b)(1).
If there are problems in the future, they will be entirely of
the Government’s making. Moreover, the effect of our de-
cision on previously-issued VA decisions is limited because
it applies only to claims subject to the AMA and does not
affect veterans claims under the legacy system. 38 U.S.C.
§ 101 note (Effective Date of 2017 Amendment); see also
Oral Arg. at 18:26–19:19 (Gov’t admission); id. at 40:38–
41:08 (Mr. Hamill admission). Finally, to the extent the
Government’s concerns are policy-driven, the Supreme
Court has explained, “‘even the most formidable’ policy ar-
guments cannot ‘overcome’ a clear statutory directive.” BP
P.L.C. v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 593 U.S. 230,
141 S. Ct. 1532, 1542 (2021) (quoting Kloeckner v. Solis,
568 U.S. 41, 55 n.4 (2012)).
decision. See 38 U.S.C. § 5110 (setting forth deadlines for
pursuing AMA review options).
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 15 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 15 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 16
II. Mootness
We next turn to the issue of mootness. Our conclusion
that Mr. Hamill’s 2021 VA decision could not implicitly
deny his character of discharge claim necessarily means
his petition to the Veterans Court, which sought to compel
adjudication, was not moot when it was filed in 2022. This,
however, does not end the inquiry.
There remains an open question regarding the effect of
the VA’s February 2023 letter to Mr. Hamill, which explic-
itly found Mr. Hamill had not submitted new and material
evidence to warrant reopening his discharge determina-
tion. J.A. 76–78. The panel majority acknowledged that,
if Mr. Hamill’s petition was not mooted until he received
this letter, “then Mr. Hamill could reasonably argue that,
although he’d received his requested relief, the inherently
transitory and picking off exceptions to mootness might al-
low the class he described to go forward.” J.A. 5. The Vet-
erans Court did not conduct this analysis in the first
instance, however, because it concluded “[t]he implicit de-
nial doctrine . . . resolve[d] the controversy.” Id.
“While an appellate court has ‘inherent jurisdiction to
determine whether a lower tribunal had jurisdiction,’ . . . it
also has discretion to remand issues, even jurisdictional
ones, to the [lower] court when that court has not had the
opportunity to consider the issue in the first instance.”
Salmon Spawning & Recovery All. v. U.S. Customs & Bor-
der Prot., 550 F.3d 1121, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (citation
omitted). We exercise that discretion here and remand to
the Veterans Court to consider, in the first instance,
whether an exception to mootness applies.
CONCLUSION
We have considered the parties’ remaining arguments
and find them unpersuasive. For the foregoing reasons, we
(1) vacate the Veterans Court’s order dismissing
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 16 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 16 of 17 --

HAMILL v. COLLINS 17
Mr. Hamill’s petition and denying his RCA, and (2) remand
for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
VACATED AND REMANDED
COSTS
Costs to Mr. Hamill.
Case: 24-1543 Document: 75 Page: 17 Filed: 02/04/2026

-- 17 of 17 --