This Article is intended as an overview of three major advancements in veterans law in the past decade: major changes in federal court case law regarding veterans benefits through the prism of the thirtieth anniversary of the CAVC, the most sweeping legislative changes to appeals of veterans benefits decisions in the past thirty years, and the new push to force the Department of Defense to equitably administer the discharges of veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injuries. To accomplish this review, Part II will look at the CAVC and its evolution, particularly in the past decade. By examining the roots of the court’s creation, the impact it has had and will continue to have on veterans law becomes a richer discussion, particularly as one recognizes that the CAVC is on the burgeoning frontier of veterans benefits jurisprudence. Part III will consider the impact of new legislation shaped during President Obama’s administration and signed into law by President Trump in 2017, marking the first major overhaul in the way the VA processes claims since the creation of the CAVC thirty years ago. Part IV will discuss the growing investigation, litigation, and legislative pushes on behalf of veterans whose discharges from military service are characterized in a way that prevents them from re-entering civilian life successfully and seeking medical treatment or benefits related to their service. Part V will offer some thoughts on the future of veterans law in the next decade and things to watch for as it continues to expand and evolve.

Part I of this Article explores VA policies and examines how the VA determines that a veteran is incompetent for financial purposes. Part II discusses gun control legislation and its effect on the ability of a financially incompetent veteran to possess firearms. Part III applies the VA’s process by providing the case-study of a veteran who the VA determined to be financially incompetent. Part IV explores the federal legislation regarding incompetency decisions, including the SSA’s proposed rule which would have followed the VA’s lead in reporting beneficiaries determined to be financially incompetent, and curing legislation such as the Veterans 2ndAmendment Protection Act. Part V analyzes the constitutional implications of the VA’s process. Part VI concludes, emphasizing the need to address this issue and providing some potential avenues of relief for veterans who have already been listed as a prohibited person due to a determination of financial incompetence.