Case: 24-1387 Document: 46 Page: 1 Filed: 09/11/2025

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ ANNETTE HURLEY, Claimant-Appellant v. DOUGLAS A. COLLINS, SECRETARY OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, Respondent-Appellee ______________________ 2024-1387 ______________________ Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 22-642, Judge Amanda L. Mere- dith. ______________________ Decided: September 11, 2025 ______________________ ROBERT DAVIS, Law Offices of Robert R. Davis, Char- lotte, NC, argued for claimant-appellant.

AUGUSTUS GOLDEN, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, argued for respondent-appellee. Also repre- sented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, WILLIAM JAMES GRIMALDI, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; BRIAN D. GRIFFIN, JONATHAN Case: 24-1387 Document: 46 Page: 2 Filed: 09/11/2025

2 HURLEY v. COLLINS

KRISCH, Office of General Counsel, United States Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. ______________________ Before LOURIE, TARANTO, and CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judges.

CUNNINGHAM, Circuit Judge.

Annette Hurley appeals a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (“Veterans Court”), affirming a Board of Veterans’ Appeals decision finding that the character of her discharge from active duty service (August 6, 1980, to January 12, 1983) is a bar to Depart- ment of Veterans Affairs’ (“VA”) compensation under 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. Hurley v. McDonough, No. 22-0642, 2023 WL 8108059, at *1, *5 (Vet. App. Nov. 22, 2023); J.A. 29. For the below reasons, we vacate and remand.

Because the parties are familiar with the general back- ground facts of this case, we focus only on the facts relevant to our decision here. After Ms. Hurley filed her opening brief with this court on March 21, 2024, see ECF No. 10, the applicable regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.12, was substan- tially amended. See Update and Clarify Regulatory Bars to Benefits Based on Character of Discharge, 89 Fed. Reg. 32361, 32361 (Apr. 26, 2024) (explaining that this amended rule applies to applications for benefits that are pending before the VA, the Veterans Court, or the Federal Circuit on June 25, 2024). The Secretary of Veterans Af- fairs subsequently moved to remand pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 27(f). Appellee’s Br. 12.

We vacate and remand to the Veterans Court to con- sider the updated version of the applicable regulation, 38 C.F.R. § 3.12. “A remand is generally required if [an] in- tervening event may affect the validity of the agency ac- tion” and “may conserve judicial resources.” SKF USA Inc. v. United States, 254 F.3d 1022, 1028–29 (Fed. Cir. 2001).

At oral argument, counsel for Ms. Hurley conceded that the Case: 24-1387 Document: 46 Page: 3 Filed: 09/11/2025

HURLEY v. COLLINS 3

updated regulation applies to her application for benefits and no longer objects to a remand. Oral Arg. 1:04–1:24, 3:00–3:07, https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/oral-arguments/2 4-1387_09022025.mp3 (“We don’t object to a re- mand . . . .”); ECF No. 45 (“The parties agree that this case should be remanded.”). Because the Veterans Court did not have the benefit of the amended regulation, we vacate and remand. 1 On remand, Ms. Hurley’s application for benefits should be considered in light of the amended reg- ulation.

VACATED AND REMANDED COSTS No costs.

1 Because of our decision to vacate and remand, we do not reach Ms. Hurley’s arguments that the Veterans Court erred in applying the incorrect standard for (1) will- ful misconduct in 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(n), Appellant’s Br. 11–35, and (2) harmless error, id. at 35–47.