Shirley A. Edwards v. James B. Peake

I concur with the result reached by the majority pertaining to the first debt in the amount of $2,366, but because I believe the Court should affirm the Board’s decision with regard to the second, $12,347 debt, I must respectfully dissent. In an analysis reminiscent of Coburn v. Nicholson, 19 Vet.App. 427 (2006), the majority manufactures confusion where none exists and assumes the role of the appellant’s co-counsel by fashioning a new argument for the appellant to justify a remand. Although the majority finds the $12,347 debt to be interrelated with the $2,366 debt such that a remand is…