Skip to content
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Do It For The Caselaw
  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • About
  • Shop
  • Subscribe
Home / Decisions / United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit / Hutchison v. Collins
Fed. Cir.

Hutchison v. Collins

July 1, 2026 ·25-1432 ·Panel Decision ·Dyk · By Raj Patel

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and remanded a decision denying service-connected disability benefits. The court held that the Board of Veterans' Appeals correctly relied on official service records to determine active-duty status.

Listen to this decision 0:00 / 1:05
Download

Key takeaways

  • Holding: The court affirmed the denial of benefits but remanded the case to the Veterans Court to hold proceedings in abeyance while the claimant pursues a correction of her naval service records.
  • Vote: Panel Decision
  • Practical effect: Claimants seeking to correct service records to establish active-duty status must petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records rather than relying on witness testimony in Veterans Court proceedings. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Veterans Court to hold the matter in abeyance pending those correction proceedings.

Background

Carrol E. Hutchison appealed a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which had affirmed a Board of Veterans’ Appeals denial of service-connected disability benefits for knee and ankle disorders and a sleep disorder. The Board denied the claim because Ms. Hutchison failed to establish that her disabilities were caused by an injury incurred or aggravated in line of service. The Board relied on naval personnel records indicating she had no active-duty service. Ms. Hutchison argued the Board erred by not considering witness testimony suggesting her service should be classified as active duty.

The court’s reasoning

The court affirmed that the Board did not err in declining to consider witness testimony. Under 38 C.F.R. Section 3.203(a)(1), the Board may only consider documentation issued by the relevant service department as evidence to establish a particular service classification. The court noted it has consistently rejected similar challenges to this requirement. The court cited Dela Cruz v. Wilkie and Soria v. Brown to support this conclusion. The court recognized that Ms. Hutchison may pursue a claim to correct her personnel service records with the Board for Correction of Naval Records.

What it means going forward

Claimants seeking to correct service records to establish active-duty status must petition the Board for Correction of Naval Records rather than relying on witness testimony in Veterans Court proceedings. The Federal Circuit remanded the case to the Veterans Court to hold the matter in abeyance pending those correction proceedings.

Civil Social Security

On this page

Background The court’s reasoning What it means going forward

Share

Related from this court

Jul 17, 2026 Kelly v. United States Jul 17, 2026 Schindler v. Squires Jul 16, 2026 4DD Holdings, LLC v. United States Jul 16, 2026 Bee v. United States
Do It For The Caselaw

Just Do It For the Caselaw!

Site

  • Mission
  • The Anchors
  • Editorial Process
  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Contact

Read & Listen

  • Decisions
  • Broadcast
  • Topics
  • The Weekly Brief

Follow

© 2026 Do It For The Caselaw. Not legal advice.