Rogelio C. Gomez v. Robert A. McDonald

On its face, the appellant’s July 2013 motion clearly is a motion for revision, not a possible motion for Board reconsideration. It not only is styled as a motion for revision, but the content of the motion references clear and unmistakable error, as well as subpart O and § 20.1400, and it makes no reference to a motion for reconsideration or the regulatory sections governing reconsideration. Moreover, this motion was the appellant’s only submission during the 120-day appeal period.2 Although the appellant stated on his NOA that he had filed a “motion for reconsideration” with the Board, this…