United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

VINCENT CURTIS CONYERS, Claimant-Appellant

v.

DENIS MCDONOUGH, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________

2023-1525 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 17-4423, Judge Coral Wong Pi- etsch, Judge Grant Jaquith, Judge Joseph L. Toth. ______________________

Decided: January 30, 2024 ______________________

V. C. CONYERS, Uniondale, NY, pro se.

MILES JARRAD WRIGHT, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ERIC P. BRUSKIN, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; MICHELLE BERNSTEIN, BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, Of- fice of General Counsel, United States Department of Vet- erans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Case: 23-1525 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 01/30/2024

2 CONYERS v. MCDONOUGH

Before MOORE, Chief Judge, REYNA and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. REYNA, Circuit Judge. Vincent Curtis Conyers, an army veteran, applied for employment benefits under the Veteran Readiness and Employment program, a program administered by the United States Department of Veterans Affairs. After the VA denied his application, Mr. Conyers requested an ad- ministrative review, which resulted in another decision to deny the application. Mr. Conyers then appealed to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which affirmed the denial de- cision. Mr. Conyers appealed the Board decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, which affirmed the Board. In reaching its decision, the Veterans Court rejected Mr. Conyers’ claim that certain documents formed part of the administrative record under the doctrine of constructive possession. Because the Veterans Court ap- plied an incorrect legal standard in its review of the doc- trine of constructive possession, we vacate and remand for further proceedings. BACKGROUND The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (“VA”) ad- ministers the Veteran Readiness and Employment pro- gram. See Appx1. 1 The Readiness and Employment program is designed to provide benefits and services “to help veterans integrate themselves into the civilian work force.” Id. In 2013, Mr. Conyers applied for Readiness and Em- ployment program benefits. Appx2. After Mr. Conyers

1 “Appx” refers to the appendix submitted by Mr. Co- nyers and “SAppx” refers to the appendix submitted with the Response Brief filed by the government on behalf of the VA. Case: 23-1525 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 01/30/2024

CONYERS v. MCDONOUGH 3

submitted various questionnaires and met with a VA coun- selor, the VA rejected his claim “because his chosen voca- tional goal was not feasible.” Appx2–3. Mr. Conyers requested administrative review of the VA’s decision to re- ject his Readiness and Employment program claim. Appx3. The VA promptly issued a decision finding that Mr. Conyers had not identified a reasonably feasible voca- tional goal. Id. Mr. Conyers appealed to the Board of Vet- erans’ Appeals (“Board”). Id. The Board affirmed the VA’s decision that Mr. Conyers’ plan for self-employment was “not suitable for his circumstances” and thus denied his claim. Id. Mr. Conyers appealed the Board’s decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”). See id. During the appeal before the Veterans Court, Mr. Co- nyers made multiple requests, including motions to com- pel, that certain documents be