PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension and Insurance.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jun 30, 1993
TABLE OF CONTENTS: Title I: Adjudication Improvements Title II: Board of Veterans' Appeals Improvements Title III: Court of Veterans Appeals Improvements Veterans' Adjudication and Appeals Improvements Act of 1993 - Title I: Adjudication Improvements - Authorizes (currently, directs) the Secretary of Veterans Affairs to require an annual income statement from persons receiving pension benefits from the Department of Veterans Affairs. Reduces from one year to 120 days the time period for a Department claim applicant to respond to a notice of an incomplete application. Limits the review of reopened claims to the issue to which the new and material evidence is related. Limits the retroactive effective date of an award based on clear error to ten years before receipt of the allegation of such error. Directs the Secretary to: (1) report to specified congressional committees a plan for the reorganization of adjudication divisions located within the regional offices of the Veterans Benefits Administration; and (2) enter into an agreement with the Secretary of Defense for the immediate transfer to the Department of the service medical records of individuals separated from the armed forces. Title II: Board of Veterans' Appeals Improvements - Repeals the current 65-person limit on the size of the Board of Veterans' Appeals. Requires the Chairman of the Board to be subject to the same ethical and legal limitations that apply to judges of the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals. Repeals the requirement of an annual report on the number of temporary members appointed to the Board. Revises provisions concerning: (1) assignment of matters before the Board from the Chairman to other Board members; (2) determinations made by Board members (with a review of each decision by the Chairman or Vice Chairman); and (3) Board jurisdiction. Reduces from one year to 120 days: (1) the period for the filing of a notice of disagreement and appeal to a Board decision; and (2) administrative appeals of decisions by designated officials of the Department. Provides procedures for a Board hearing of an applicant's appeal, allowing such hearing to take place at either the Board's principal location or a regional office of the Department. Title III: Court of Veterans Appeals Improvements - Requires the U.S. Court of Veterans Appeals to review the entire record (currently, the record) of the previous proceedings before the Secretary and the Board. Prohibits the Court from considering an issue not presented on appeal to the Board.
People & committees
Rep. Slattery, Jim [D-KS-2] · D–KS
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Compensation, Pension and Insurance.
Referred to the House Committee on Veterans' Affairs.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 26, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2574 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2574 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2574 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2574 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.