Carrol E. Hutchison v. Douglas A. Collins, Secretary of Veterans Affairs

N OTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.
United States Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
______________________
CARROL E. HUTCHISON,
Claimant-Appellant
v.
DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF
VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Respondent-Appellee
______________________
2025-1432
______________________
Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims in No. 23-2456, Judge William S. Green-
berg.
______________________
Decided: July 1, 2026
______________________
ROBERT C. BROWN, J R ., Tommy Klepper & Associates,
PLLC, Norman, OK, argued for claimant-appellant.
MEREDYTH C OHEN HAVASY , Commercial Litigation
Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Jus-
tice, Washington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee.
Also represented by ELIZABETH MARIE H OSFORD, P ATRICIA
M. MCCARTHY , BRETT SHUMATE; D EREK SCADDEN, ANDREW
Case: 25-1432 Document: 42 Page: 1 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 1 of 3 --

HUTCHISON v. COLLINS 2
J. STEINBERG, Office of General Counsel, United States De-
partment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC.
______________________
Before D YK and REYNA , Circuit Judges, and BISSOON,
Chief District Judge.1
D YK, Circuit Judge.
Carrol E. Hutchison appeals a decision of the United
States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans
Court”) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap-
peals (“Board”). The Board denied entitlement to service-
connected disability benefits for a left knee disorder, a right
knee disorder, a right ankle disorder, and a sleep disorder
on the ground that Ms. Hutchison had failed to establish
her claimed disabilities were caused by an injury incurred
or aggravated in line of service.
To establish entitlement to disability compensation, an
applicant must first establish that she is a qualifying “vet-
eran” under the statutory framework. See 38 U.S.C.
§§ 1110, 1131. For this purpose, “[t]he term ‘veteran’
means a person who served in the active military, naval,
air, or space service, and who was discharged or released
therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable.”
38 U.S.C. § 101(2). The requirements for establishing ac-
tive service, and hence eligibility for service-connected ben-
efits, are based on the character of the applicant’s service
(i.e., active-duty service, active-duty-for-training service,
or inactive-duty-training service). 38 U.S.C. § 101(24).
Ms. Hutchison does not argue that she is a veteran based
on her active-duty-for-training or inactive-duty-training
1 Honorable Cathy Bissoon, Chief District Judge,
United States District Court for the Western District of
Pennsylvania, sitting by designation.
Case: 25-1432 Document: 42 Page: 2 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 2 of 3 --

HUTCHISON v. COLLINS 3
service, but that she meets the more lenient standard for
active-duty service members.
In denying entitlement, the Board relied on
Ms. Hutchison’s naval personnel records, which indicated
that she had no active-duty service. Ms. Hutchison argues
that the Board erred in not considering other evidence that
suggests her prior service is properly classified as active
duty, including witness testimony.
The Veterans Court properly concluded that the Board
did not err in declining to consider this evidence in deter-
mining if Ms. Hutchison was in active-duty service because
the Board may only consider documentation issued by the
relevant service department as evidence to establish a par-
ticular service classification. 38 C.F.R. § 3.203(a)(1). We
have consistently rejected similar challenges to the Board’s
requirement for service department records and see noth-
ing in the regulations cited by appellant to warrant a dif-
ferent outcome here. See Dela Cruz v. Wilkie, 931 F.3d
1143, 1149 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (citing Soria v. Brown,
118 F.3d 747, 749 (Fed. Cir. 1997)). As the government has
recognized, Ms. Hutchison may pursue a claim to correct
her personnel service records with the proper forum, the
Board for Correction of Naval Records (the “Corrections
Board”). See id. at 1151. As in Dela Cruz, we conclude that
remand is appropriate and remand to the Veterans Court
to hold the case in abeyance pending proceedings at the
Corrections Board. Id. at 1152.
AFFIRMED-IN-PART AND REMANDED
COSTS
No costs.
Case: 25-1432 Document: 42 Page: 3 Filed: 07/01/2026

-- 3 of 3 --