Veterans Cannot Request Delays to Obtain C-File Results: New Federal Circuit Ruling
CCK Law: Our Vital Role in Veterans Law
On September 8, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential ruling in Brack v. Collins that may impact veterans wanting to review C&P exam results during Direct Review appeals.
In its official opinion, the Court ruled that when a veteran chooses the Direct Review lane, they have no reasonable expectation that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA) will delay its decision for 90 days after a requested C-file arrives — even assuming that the “fair process” doctrine applies. In other words, when it comes to the Direct Review lane, the BVA does not have to wait for a veteran’s C-file to arrive before issuing a decision on that veteran’s claim.
In this article, you will learn what happened in this case, how the AMA’s three review lanes compare, and what this ruling means for veterans who need access to their C-file records.
Key points of this article include:
- Veterans can request a copy of their VA claims file, or C-file, by filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) or Privacy Act request with VA. However, as of this ruling, filing such a request will not pause a pending appeal for veterans in the Direct Review appeal lane.
- Part of the Court’s reasoning for the Brack ruling is that the Direct Review appeal lane is intended for veterans looking for a faster turnaround time for the BVA to decide their claim. Unlike the other two BVA appeal lanes, the Direct Review lane has no minimum timeframe for the BVA to issue a decision.
- This ruling essentially means that veterans who are appealing to the BVA should avoid the Direct Review lane if they believe their C-file contains critical information that could support their argument, as the BVA will likely not wait for that C-file to arrive before deciding the claim.
Who We Are: Chisholm Chisholm & Kilpatrick (CCK Law) has argued many of the cases that have defined and clarified veterans disability law. CCK Law attorneys serve in leadership positions throughout the legal community and have posted more than 2,500 blogs and 1,100 videos about veterans benefits. Email the CCK Public Relations team for media or similar requests.
What Did the Federal Circuit Decide in Brack v. Collins?
In Brack v. Collins, the Federal Circuit affirmed that a veteran who chooses the Direct Review appeal lane has no reasonable expectation that the BVA will delay its decision until 90 days after a requested C-file arrives, even with a Privacy Act request already pending.
This is an important ruling, as it means veterans in the Direct Review appeal lane are not guaranteed any additional time to obtain their C-file and potentially use the information within before the BVA decides their claim.
Watch CCK Law Partner Emma Peterson break down the Direct Review docket for a BVA appeal:
What Happened in Brack v. Collins?
Brack v. Collins began when a Vietnam War veteran named Bruce Brack won service connection for coronary artery disease with an effective date of January 5, 2021. However, Mr. Brack then pursued an earlier effective date for his claim, which a VA regional office denied.
In response, Mr. Brack and his representative began to prepare an appeal to potentially overturn the denial. As part of this preparation, in August 2021, Mr. Brack’s representative filed a Privacy Act request to obtain his client’s claims file (also called a C-file), which possibly contained information they could use to support the appeal’s argument.
At this time, Mr. Brack’s representative also requested that any eventual Board decision be held until 90 days after the C-file arrived. Subsequently, in October 2021, Mr. Brack filed his Notice of Disagreement (NOD), selecting the Direct Review lane.
On January 20, 2022, Mr. Brack received his C-file from VA. However, only 47 days after this (on March 8, 2022), the BVA denied both Mr. Brack’s earlier-effective-date claim and his 90-day extension request.
After the BVA’s denial, Mr. Brack appealed to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC) regarding the claim. He argued that under Bryant v. Wilkie, VA’s “fair process” doctrine should have compelled the BVA to pause its decision until the full 90 days after he had received his C-file, so he and his representative would have the chance to review the file and use it to inform their arguments.
The CAVC rejected this argument, however, and after Mr. Brack’s death, his surviving spouse, Priscilla Brack — who had been substituted as the appellant at the Veterans Court — appealed to the Federal Circuit Court.
Ultimately, the Federal Circuit rejected Ms. Brack’s argument as well, ruling that the BVA is not legally required to stay a decision due to a pending Privacy Act request. The Federal Circuit Court issued this ruling on September 8, 2026.
What Is the “Fair Process” Doctrine?
The “fair process” doctrine is a court precedent that traces to Thurber v. Brown, a 1993 CAVC decision. This decision holds that, apart from due process, the BVA must also give veterans reasonable notice of the evidence it will consider and a chance to respond before making its decision.
The Federal Circuit Court has acknowledged this CAVC precedent but has never confirmed it as an independent right, noting in its 2024 opinion on Frantzis v. McDonough that there is “uncertainty surrounding this doctrine and how it is applied.”
Importantly, in Brack v. Collins, the Court never actually ruled on the legal validity of the “fair process” doctrine. In fact, for argument’s sake, the Court made three assumptions regarding the “fair process” doctrine that actually worked in Ms. Brack’s favor. These assumptions are:
- That the “fair process” doctrine exists as a right separate from constitutional due process.
- That the doctrine still applies even to appeals under the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA).
- That the doctrine applies specifically to the Direct Review lane.
However, even assuming all of these in her favor, the Court still ultimately ruled against Ms. Brack. In doing so, it did not at all address the actual validity of the “fair process” doctrine.
Instead, the Court only answered the narrower question of whether a veteran who picks the Direct Review lane has a “reasonable expectation” that the BVA will delay any decision-making until 90 days after the veteran receives their C-file. In the end, the Court ruled that the veteran does not have such an expectation.
What Was the Federal Circuit Court’s Legal Reasoning for the Brack v. Collins Ruling?
In large part, the Federal Circuit Court ruled as it did in Brack v. Collins because Mr. Brack had earlier chosen the Direct Review lane to file his appeal to the BVA. This lane is intended for veterans who want a faster decision from the BVA than the other lanes provide, which is relevant to the case for a few reasons:
- Under 38 USC § 7113(c)(2), the two other BVA appeal lanes (i.e., the Evidence Submission lane and the Hearing Request lane) both offer fixed 90-day windows for the claimant to submit additional evidence. However, the Direct Review lane has no such minimum processing time. VA Form 10182 (i.e., the NOD submission form) even warns veterans that choosing this lane “often results in the Board issuing its decision most quickly.”
- It was unclear on what date Mr. Brack would receive his C-file and the proposed 90-day extension period would therefore begin. The Court found that the unpredictable timeframes involved here were incompatible with the Direct Review lane’s purpose as a pathway for veterans seeking faster decisions from the BVA.
- Quoting the CAVC, the Court also reasoned that letting claimants like Mr. Brack pick the Direct Review lane for its speed and then later demand individualized delays would simply add complexity to this particular lane, potentially slowing its turnaround time and negatively impacting other veterans who chose the lane specifically because it is supposed to return decisions quickly. In this instance, the Court decided that siding with Mr. Brack would defeat the purpose of the lane and undercut Congress’ intent for creating the AMA in the first place (i.e., increased speed and efficiency of appeals).
With all of this in mind, the Court ruled that there was no reasonable expectation that the BVA should have delayed its ruling until 90 days after Mr. Brack received his C-file.
The question of whether the BVA was compelled to grant him the additional time to prepare that argument is the central legal question answered by Brack v. Collins.
How Is Brack v. Collins Different From Bryant v. Wilkie?
Priscilla Brack relied on the precedent set by Bryant v. Wilkie to argue her case in Brack v. Collins. However, in the end, the Court determined that the Bryant v. Wilkie ruling did not apply to Ms. Brack’s case.
Bryant v. Wilkie was a pre-AMA case that required the BVA to wait 90 days after mailing a certification notice to decide on a veteran’s claim, as long as the veteran notified the Board of their intent to submit additional argument. However, this delay was grounded in a specific regulation (which has since been superseded by the passage of the AMA) and had a fixed start date set by the BVA.
By contrast, Mr. Brack’s proposed 90-day delay would have started whenever VA happened to fulfill his Privacy Act request, with no regulatory backing. The Court reasoned that these differences made Bryant inapplicable.
How Do the Three AMA Board Review Lanes Work?
Under the AMA, veterans choose one of three review lanes when filing a Notice of Disagreement with the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. Notably, these lanes offer different balances of speed versus the capacity to add evidence and argument:
- Direct Review Lane — Intended as the fastest lane, Direct Review does not allow for the submission of new evidence or offer a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.
- Evidence Submission Lane — The intermediate lane, Evidence Submission is for veterans who want to submit additional evidence, but who do not need a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge.
- Hearing Request Lane — The slowest but most in-depth option, the Hearing Request lane allows veterans to submit new evidence and receive an in-person or teleconference hearing with a Veterans Law Judge.
| Review Lane | New Evidence | Guaranteed Minimum Time Before a Decision (Evidence/Argument Window) | Average Days Pending, per BVA (2026 VA data) |
| Direct Review | Not allowed | None | ~ 7 months |
| Evidence Submission | Within 90 days of the NOD | 90 days | ~ 8 months |
| Hearing Request | Within 90 days of the hearing | Hearing date, plus 90 days | ~ 2.4 years |
What Does the Brack v. Collins Ruling Mean for Veterans Requesting Their C-File?
Essentially, the Brack v. Collins ruling means that the Board of Veterans’ Appeals is not obligated to pause its decision-making in order to give veterans in the Direct Review lane time to obtain their C-file and use it to formulate a legal argument.
Therefore, veterans who believe their C-file may contain information critical to their appeal (e.g., due to factors like missing records or incomplete C&P exams) should take steps to ensure this ruling does not negatively affect their case. Some of these steps may include:
- Avoiding the Direct Review lane and instead opting for the Evidence Submission or Hearing Request lanes, which guarantee a 90-day delay where veterans can submit new evidence and arguments.
- Filing their appeal as a Supplemental Claim, which allows for the submission of new evidence. However, this will take the appeal out of the BVA’s hands entirely and instead leave it with the original VA regional office.
- Filing for and obtaining the C-file before submitting an NOD form to VA. As long as the veteran has the C-file ahead of time, they should not have to worry about needing an extra delay from the BVA. Under 38 USC § 7105(b)(1)(A), veterans typically have one year to file an NOD from the date VA issues notice of the decision — time that can be used to request and obtain a C-file.
Watch CCK Law Supervising Attorney Alyse Phillips and Associate Attorney Kaitlyn Degnan discuss C-files and how veterans can obtain them:
Frequently Asked Questions
Does Brack v. Collins affect the Evidence Submission or Hearing lanes?
No, the ruling addresses only Direct Review’s lack of a guaranteed timeframe. Evidence Submission and Hearing still guarantee 90 days under 38 USC § 7113(c)(2).
Is there a deadline for VA to respond to a Privacy Act request for a claims file?
No. Under 38 CFR § 1.577(c), VA sets its own procedures for producing records, with no fixed statutory or regulatory deadline.
What happens if the Board decides a Direct Review appeal before a veteran obtains their C-file?
Under Brack, the Federal Circuit has confirmed this is legally permitted. Veterans who need time to review records first may be better served by the Evidence Submission lane, the Hearing Request lane, a Supplemental Claim, or by obtaining their C-file before filing their Notice of Disagreement.
How do I request my C-file under the Privacy Act?
Veterans can request their C-file using VA Form 20-10206, a combined FOIA and Privacy Act request form. Because VA has no set deadline to respond, requesting the file early, ideally before filing an NOD, leaves more time to review it before choosing a lane.
Looking for More Information on VA Appeals?
Looking for more information? CCK Law hosts over 2,500 pages and 1,100 videos of free veterans law content. Search our blog or browse our YouTube channel for guides, explainers, and updates on VA benefits topics.
