In the veterans-benefits system, Congress has
provided that an otherwise-final agency decision is sub
ject to one review on appeal to the Secretary. Final
decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board.
Decisions of the Board shall be based on the entire
record in the proceeding and upon consideration of all
evidence and material of record and applicable provi
sions of law and regulation 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). The
Board of Veterans ' Appeals (Board) applies a rebuttable
presumption when reviewing veterans ' disability claims.
The Supreme Court in Mathis v. Shulkin, 137 S.Ct.
1994 (2017): Statement of Justice Sotomayor respecting
the denial of certiorari. This petition raises important
questions about how the Government carries out its
obligations to our veterans. The Board of Veterans '
Appeals (Board) applies a rebuttable presumption when
reviewing veterans ' disability claims: Justice Gorsuch,
dissenting from denial of certiorari. The VA appears to
apply the same presumption in its own administrative
proceedings, but where does this presumption come
from? It enjoys no apparent provenance in the relevant
statutes. There Congress imposed on the VA an affirm
ative duty to assist —not impair —veterans seeking
evidence for their disability claims. See 38 U.S.C.
§ 5103A(a)(i). And consider how the presumption works
in practice. But how is it that an administrative agency
may manufacture for itself or win from the courts a
regime that has no basis in the relevant statutes and
does nothing to assist, and much to impair, the inter
ests of those the law says the agency is supposed to
serve? The question presented are:

1. Whether, the appellant has demonstrated that
[the] presumption of regularity operates to violate his
right to due process, of which a judge-made presump
tion of regularity allows for the Government to affirm
the Board 's decision, despite their findings to the
contrary?

2. Whether, the veteran in his timely filing of the
2018 VA Form 9 rebutting the June 2015 untimely
decision was denied his procedural due process under
38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) and 38 U.S.C. § 5103A, The VA's
statutory "duty to assist " must extend this liberal
reading to include issues raised in all documents or
oral testimony submitted prior to the BVA decision.

3. When the Veterans Court applies FRE 201
[adjudicated facts] in one class and denies a FRE 201
in another class [similarly situated] a violation of
rule of law?

4. Whether, In the Federal Circuit, a request for
Judicial Notice of Adjudicated Facts is a mandatory
requirement under FRE 201?

Whether the presumption of regularity violates due process