Karen S. McDowell v. Eric K. Shinseki

I concur with the majority’s ultimate conclusion that the child is not entitled to benefits. However, I write separately because I believe that, in drafting 38 C.F.R. § 3.210, the Secretary intentionally omitted a requirement of biological paternity as a precondition to a child’s receipt of benefits under 38 U.S.C. §§ 1313 and 1314. I would find that the regulation requires the assumption of paternal responsibility and the establishment of a paternal relationship as the basis for the child’s benefits, rather than a relationship based on biology. Consequently, because the Board relied solely…