Rhone v. McDonough

53 F.4th 656

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• Decided: November 17, 2022
• Docket: 22-1360
• Status: Published

Opinion

Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 1 Filed: 11/17/2022

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________

GUY C. RHONE, Claimant-Appellant

v.

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

2022-1360 ______________________

Appeal from the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims in No. 20-2370, Chief Judge Margaret C. Bartley. ______________________

Decided: November 17, 2022 ______________________

GUY C. RHONE, Granite Falls, NC, pro se.

BORISLAV KUSHNIR, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United States Department of Justice, Wash- ington, DC, for respondent-appellee. Also represented by BRIAN M. BOYNTON, ELIZABETH MARIE HOSFORD, PATRICIA M. MCCARTHY; AMANDA BLACKMON, Y. KEN LEE, Office of General Counsel, United States Department of Veterans Affairs, Washington, DC. Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 2 Filed: 11/17/2022

______________________

Before CHEN, BRYSON, and HUGHES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Guy C. Rhone appeals the decision of the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Veterans Court) affirming a decision of the Board of Veterans’ Ap- peals (Board) determining that the Department of Veter- ans Affairs (VA) lawfully withheld a portion of his disability compensation payments pursuant to a state court order for alimony payments. On appeal, Mr. Rhone argues the Veterans Court erred for two reasons: (1) fed- eral statutes do not allow withholding of disability compen- sation for alimony payments; and (2) the VA’s denial of substantive review of state court garnishment orders vio- lates his right to due process within the VA adjudication system. Because the Veterans Court correctly interpreted the relevant statutes and the VA’s denial of review of state garnishment orders does not violate due process, we affirm. BACKGROUND Mr. Rhone served in the United States Navy from Feb- ruary 1950 to December 1953 and in the United States Air Force from November 1959 to August 1988. Rhone v. McDonough, No. 20-2370, 2021 WL 2678674, at *1 (Vet. App. June 30, 2021) (Veterans Court Decision). In Febru- ary 1986, Mr. Rhone and his former spouse, Jo Anne Rhone, divorced upon entry of a Final Judgment of Disso- lution of Marriage (Divorce Decree) by the Circuit Court for Hillsborough County, Florida (State Court). Appx. 251, 255. 1 Recognizing that Mr. Rhone would be eligible for mil- itary retirement within two years, the Divorce Decree stated that Mrs. Rhone would receive 40% of Mr. Rhone’s

1 All Appx. citations refer to the appendix filed con- currently with Respondent-Appellee’s brief. Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 3 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 3

military retirement benefits. Appx. 252, 254–55. Mr. Rhone appealed, and the District Court of Appeals for the 2nd District of Florida (State Appellate Court) upheld the Divorce Decree. Appx. 249–50. In 1988, Mr. Rhone separated from military service due to physical disability. Appx. 39, 245. Effective August 10, 1988, he had a combined disability rating of 60%. Appx. 248. This disability rating was subsequently in- creased to 70%, effective April 18, 1989. Appx. 242. To re- ceive his disability compensation, Mr. Rhone elected to waive a portion of his military retirement pay on July 27, 1990. Appx. 224. Such a waiver is required under 38 U.S.C. § 5305 to receive VA disability compensation. 2 As the Board found, it is undisputed that Mr. Rhone made such a waiver. Appx. 48. Mr. Rhone moved to modify his payment obligation un- der the Divorce Decree, which the State Court denied in an April 1990 order. Appx. 230–39. In doing so, the State Court clarified that the provision regarding Mrs. Rhone re- ceiving 40% of Mr. Rhone’s military retirement benefits

2 Section 5305 provides that any person who is receiving pay pursuant to any provision of law providing retired or retirement pay to persons in the Armed Forces . . . and who would be eligible to receive pension or compensation un- der the laws administered by the Secretary [of the VA] if such person were not receiving such retired or retirement pay, shall be entitled to receive such pension or compensation upon the filing by such person with the department by which such retired or retirement pay is paid of a waiver of so much of such person’s retired or retirement pay as is equal in amount to such pension or compensation. 38 U.S.C. § 5305. Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 4 Filed: 11/17/2022

“constitute[s] a provision for the payment from the Former Husband to the Former Wife of permanent periodic ali- mony and do[es] not constitute a property division.” Appx. 230–31; see also Appx. 254–55. Thus, “[t]he Former Wife is and was, therefore, entitled to an amount equal to forty percent (40%) of the gross military retirement as per- manent periodic alimony.” Appx. 231. Mr. Rhone ap- pealed, and the State Appellate Court affirmed the April 1990 order. Appx. 228–29. In August 1991, the State Court issued a Continuing Writ of Garnishment directing the Air Force to withhold from Mr. Rhone’s military retirement pay the alimony pay- ment due to Mrs. Rhone. Appx. 226–27. In November 1991, the State Court issued an order to the VA indicating that the Continuing Writ of Garnishment also applied to the VA. Appx. 221–22. In December 1991, the VA’s Office of District Counsel determined that the State Court’s No- vember 1991 order obliged the VA to make payments from Mr. Rhone’s disability compensation to Mrs. Rhone. Appx. 219–220. Mr. Rhone was notified that the VA would begin withholding a percentage of his disability compensa- tion effective February 1, 1992. Appx. 218, 214–16. In June 1996, Mr. Rhone notified the VA of his intent to renounce his rights to VA benefits. Appx. 202. He sub- sequently filed a claim for individual unemployability, but did not receive those benefits due to his renouncement. Appx. 41; see also Appx. 178–202 (seeking individual un- employability benefits in 1996–1997). Despite renouncing his VA benefits, between 1998 and 2001, he repeatedly elected to receive disability compensation in lieu of retired pay, but withdrew his election upon being informed by the VA that it would be subject to garnishment. Appx. 41–42; Appx. 173–76 (seeking disability compensation in 1998, but only if no garnishment was paid to his ex-wife); Appx. 150–66 (seeking disability compensation in 2000 and then renouncing); Appx. 148–49 (seeking disability com- pensation in 2001 but failing to pursue benefits). Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 5 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 5

In 2002, Mr. Rhone again sought to receive disability compensation. Appx. 145–47. This time, he received a dif- ferent answer from the VA on the garnishment question. In January 2003, Regional Counsel at the VA determined that Mr. Rhone’s VA compensation benefits were not sub- ject to garnishment. Veterans Court Decision, 2021 WL 2678674, at *2; Appx. 143–44. As a result, in August 2003, a VA regional office (RO) issued a decision determining that Mr. Rhone’s “compensation benefits were erroneously withheld,” Appx. 138, and that Mr. Rhone would be reim- bursed for “all benefits previously withheld,” Appx. 140. Mr. Rhone was reimbursed for $27,664 in August 2003. Appx. 117. The conflicting decisions on garnishment led to further consideration by the VA. In January 2005, the VA’s Office of Regional Counsel ultimately determined that “[the] VA must comply with the validly served Order awarding Jo Anne Rhone permanent alimony of 40% of the veteran’s military retirement pay.” Appx. 122. A VA RO notified Mr. Rhone as to this determination and resumed garnish- ing his disability compensation in March 2005. Appx. 43, 46. Mr. Rhone objected and appealed. Veterans Court De- cision, 2021 WL 2678674, at *2; Appx. 43, 117–21. Mr. Rhone continued his appeal even after Mrs. Rhone passed away in November 2005, ending the terms of the Divorce Decree for alimony payments. Appx. 43. Mr. Rhone’s appeal led to three rounds of Board decisions and remands by the Veterans Court. Veterans Court Deci- sion, 2021 WL 2678674, at *2 (discussing remands from the Veterans Court in March 2011, December 2012, and Octo- ber 2018). Following the Veterans Court’s remand in 2018, the Board issued the February 2020 decision at issue in this appeal. Id.; Appx. 36–54. Relevant here, the Board found that the State Court’s November 1991 order to the VA was “valid on its face” and the April 1990 order provided for “permanent periodic alimony.” Appx. 36. The Board Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 6 Filed: 11/17/2022

distinguished Supreme Court cases addressing the division of community property, rather than alimony, and deter- mined that the VA legally garnished Mr. Rhone’s disability compensation under 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) and (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V). Appx. 37, 46, 51–52. The Board also determined that it lacked authority to review the state court garnishment or- der, as this was “the province of state and federal courts, and not [the] VA.” Appx. 52–53. Mr. Rhone appealed the February 2020 Board decision to the Veterans Court. Veterans Court Decision, 2021 WL 2678674, at *1. Affirming the Board, the Veterans Court determined that 42 U.S.C. § 659(a) and (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) “au- thorize[] [the] VA to withhold a portion of a veteran’s VA disability payment for alimony or child support pursuant to legal process when a veteran has waived a portion of mil- itary retirement pay to receive VA benefits.” Veterans Court Decision, 2021 WL 2678674, at *4. The Veterans Court explained that, “[b]ecause Mr. Rhone waived a por- tion of his military retirement pay to receive VA disability benefits, those benefits are not exempt from apportionment for the purpose of alimony payment under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1).” Id. The Veterans Court also determined that the VA lacks jurisdiction to “decide all questions of law and fact” associated with a state garnishment order because garnishment is a matter of state law. Id. at *5 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 511(a)). This appeal followed. DISCUSSION Our authority to review decisions of the Veterans Court is limited by statute. Goodman v. Shulkin, 870 F.3d 1383, 1385 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Our review is limited to legal chal- lenges regarding the “validity of any statute or regulation or any interpretation thereof . . . , and to interpret consti- tutional and statutory provisions, to the extent presented and necessary to a decision.” 38 U.S.C. § 7292(c). We may review “a challenge to a factual determination” or “a chal- lenge to a law or regulation as applied to the facts of a Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 7 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 7

particular case” only if the appeal presents a constitutional issue. Id. § 7292(d)(2). We must affirm a Veterans Court decision unless it is “(A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) con- trary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity; (C) in excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority, or limita- tions, or in violation of a statutory right; or (D) without ob- servance of procedure required by law.” Id. § 7292(d)(1). I We first consider whether the VA is statutorily author- ized to withhold disability compensation for court-ordered alimony payments. We determine that it is. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5301(a)(1), VA benefits are generally exempt from any legal or equitable process, “except to the extent specifically authorized by law.” One such authori- zation is found in 42 U.S.C. § 659, which provides an ex- ception for alimony and child support: Notwithstanding any other provision of law . . . , ef- fective January 1, 1975, moneys (the entitlement to which is based upon remuneration for employ- ment) due from, or payable by, the United States . . . to any individual . . . shall be subject, in like manner and to the same extent as if the United States . . . were a private person, to withholding in accordance with State law . . . and to any other le- gal process brought, by a State agency administer- ing a program under a State plan approved under this part or by an individual obligee, to enforce the legal obligation of the individual to provide child support or alimony. 42 U.S.C. § 659(a). Thus, § 659(a) allows withholding of money “based upon remuneration for employment” to pro- vide alimony obligated under State law. Moreover, money “based upon remuneration for employment” includes Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 8 Filed: 11/17/2022

disability compensation from the VA under § 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V): [M]oneys payable to an individual which are con- sidered to be based upon remuneration for employ- ment . . . consist of . . . compensation for a service- connected disability paid by the Secretary [of Veter- ans Affairs] to a former member of the Armed Forces who is in receipt of retired or retainer pay if the former member has waived a portion of the re- tired or retainer pay in order to receive such com- pensation[.] 42 U.S.C. § 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) (emphasis added). Accord- ingly, if a veteran has waived a portion of his military re- tirement pay in order to receive disability compensation, § 659(a) and (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) authorize the VA to withhold disability compensation for alimony payments. The Board found that Mr. Rhone had in fact elected to make such a waiver, making his case fall within the plain language of § 659. Appx. 48, 52. Mr. Rhone argues that § 659 must be read in light of the Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. § 1408, which was enacted after § 659. 3 Specifically, Mr. Rhone argues that § 1408(d)(1)

3 The USFSPA, § 1408, was enacted in response to the Supreme Court’s decision in McCarty v. McCarty, which held that “federal law [on military retirement] pre- cludes a state court from dividing military nondisability re- tired pay pursuant to state community property laws.” 453 U.S. 210, 211, 236 (1981). The USFSPA superseded McCarty by adding § 1408(c)(1), which permits a state court to treat a portion of a veteran’s retired pay as “divisi- ble property, i.e., community property divisible upon di- vorce.” See Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400, 1403 (2017) Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 9 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 9

requires alimony to be paid from “disposable retired pay,” which does not include disability compensation, and there- fore § 659 “cannot be applied separately and independently from § 1408.” Appellant’s Br. at 9–10. He further argues that this case is governed by the Supreme Court decisions in McCarty v. McCarty, 453 U.S. 210 (1981); Mansell v. Mansell, 490 U.S. 581 (1989); and Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. 1400 (2017). Appellant’s Br. at 4, 6–8, 11–12. We dis- agree that § 1408 or the cited Supreme Court cases control here because the cited authority relates to the ability to treat military retirement pay as community property and does not speak to whether alimony may be withheld from disability compensation, the latter being governed by § 659. We address both arguments in turn. Section 1408(d)(1) authorizes the Secretary of the ap- propriate military department to make payments from a servicemember’s “disposable retired pay” to satisfy court- ordered alimony: After effective service on the Secretary concerned of a court order providing for the payment of child support or alimony . . . the Secretary shall make payments (subject to the limitations of this section) from the disposable retired pay of the member to the spouse or former spouse . . . in an amount suf- ficient to satisfy the amount of child support and

(citing § 1408(c)(1), (a)(4)(A)(ii)). In light of the USFSPA, states may treat the nonwaived portion of a veteran’s re- tired pay as community property. § 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii); see Howell, 137 S. Ct. at 1404 (explaining that the USFSPA “did not gran[t] the States the authority to treat total re- tired pay as community property” because “Congress ex- cluded from its grant of authority the disability-related waived portion of military retirement pay” (alteration in original) (internal quotations and citation omitted)). Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 10 Filed: 11/17/2022

alimony set forth in the court order and, with re- spect to a division of property, in the amount of dis- posable retired pay specifically provided for in the court order. 10 U.S.C. § 1408(d)(1) (emphasis added). Under § 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii), “disposable retired pay” is defined as a veteran’s “total monthly retired pay . . . less amounts which . . . are deducted from the retired pay . . . as a result of a waiver of retired pay required by law in order to receive [disability benefits].” § 1408(a)(4)(A)(ii). While § 1408(d)(1) regulates withholding from a certain portion of retirement pay—defined as disposable retired pay— nothing in § 1408(d)(1) forecloses the Secretary of the VA from withholding alimony obligations from disability com- pensation. As explained above, that separate matter is governed by § 659. Mr. Rhone’s reliance on § 1408(d)(1) ignores the fact that § 1408 and § 659 are directed to different departments and different sources of money. Section 1408 is in Title 10 of the U.S. Code, which governs the Armed Forces, and au- thorizes the Secretary of the appropriate military depart- ment to deduct child support, alimony, or community property from a member’s disposable retired pay—i.e., the pay earned for completing a prescribed time in service—in response to a court order. See § 1408(d)(1). In contrast, § 659 is in Title 42 and authorizes the Secretary of the VA to garnish a member’s disability pay—i.e., the pay the member receives as compensation for a disability—in re- sponse to a court order. See § 659(a), (h)(1)(A)(ii)(V). A re- tired service member with a disability may receive both retired pay and disability compensation, and § 1408(d)(1) and § 659 work together to ensure that both forms of pay- ment to the service member are subject to state orders to pay alimony. Thus, § 1408(d)(1)’s authorization for the Secretary of the appropriate military department to deduct alimony from “disposable retired pay” is irrelevant to whether the Secretary of the VA may withhold alimony Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 11 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 11

from disability compensation under § 659. Under §§ 1408 and 659, alimony may be paid both (1) by the Secretary of the appropriate military department by deducting from a member’s disposable retired pay, and (2) by the Secretary of the VA by garnishing a member’s disability compensa- tion. Contrary to Mr. Rhone’s arguments, § 1408 is en- tirely consistent with § 659, and therefore his view that § 1408 supersedes § 659 is without merit. Mr. Rhone’s argument also conflicts with the legisla- tive history. The Senate Report accompanying the USFSPA expressly contemplates § 659 and § 1408 operat- ing together to provide two, parallel methods for enforcing alimony obligations. S. Rep. No. 97-502, at 20 (1982), as reprinted in 1982 U.S.C.C.A.N. 1596, 1615. The Senate Re- port recognizes that § 659 required the government to honor “garnishment [orders] to enforce delinquent child support or alimony obligations” for members of the uni- formed services while § 1408 “will provide a second method of enforcing such obligations on the part of members of the uniformed services who are entitled to retired or retainer pay.” Id. (emphasis added). The Senate Report further states that “it is not the intent or purpose of the bill to deny proper parties the use of the enforcement provisions of [§ 659].” Id. Thus, Congress did not intend § 1408 to pro- hibit alimony payments from VA disability compensation, as Mr. Rhone argues. None of the Supreme Court decisions relied upon by Mr. Rhone are inconsistent with the above-discussed stat- utes because those decisions (1) address community prop- erty, not alimony, and (2) never address § 659’s impact on disability compensation. In McCarty—a pre-USFSPA de- cision—the Supreme Court held that “federal law [on mili- tary retirement] precludes a state court from dividing military nondisability retired pay pursuant to state com- munity property laws.” McCarty, 453 U.S. at 211, 236 (em- phasis added). McCarty was subsequently superseded in part by the USFSPA, which permits treating the Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 12 Filed: 11/17/2022

nonwaived portion of military retirement pay as commu- nity property. See supra note 3. The Supreme Court’s post-USFSPA decisions in Man- sell and Howell also focused on community property rather than alimony, and considered the limits of § 1408, not § 659. In Mansell, the Supreme Court held that state courts may not “treat as property divisible upon divorce military retirement pay that has been waived to receive veterans’ disability benefits.” Mansell, 490 U.S. at 595 (emphasis added). And in Howell, the Court considered whether a State could first “treat[] as community property . . . a portion of the veteran’s total retirement pay” and then, after the veteran waived a portion of his retirement pay to receive disability benefits, “increase . . . the amount the divorced spouse receives each month from the veteran’s retirement pay in order to indemnify the divorced spouse for the loss caused by the veteran’s waiver.” Howell, 137 S. Ct. at 1402 (emphasis added). Thus, McCarty, Mansell, and Howell prohibit treating waived retired pay as divisi- ble community property. Because these cases address only community property and say nothing about withholding al- imony benefits under § 659, they do not prohibit withhold- ing disability compensation for alimony payments as Mr. Rhone argues. 4

4 To the extent Mr. Rhone argues that (1) federal laws preempt the garnishment of disability compensation for alimony (see Appellant’s Br. at 5–8, 12, 16), or (2) that McCarty invalidated § 659, and specifically § 659(h)(1)(A)(ii)(V) (see Appellant’s Br. at 17), he misap- plies McCarty, Mansell, and Howell’s community property analysis to incorporate alimony. None of these cases ad- dress alimony, and thus cannot preempt or invalidate § 659, which is directed only to “child support or alimony” and by definition excludes community property. See Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 13 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 13

Section § 659 is not in conflict with § 1408 or the Su- preme Court’s decisions in McCarty, Mansell, and Howell. As previously stated, § 659 and § 1408 work together so that alimony may be paid from both a veteran’s disability compensation and military retirement pay. Accordingly, the Veterans Court correctly determined that § 659 author- izes the VA to withhold a portion of a veteran’s VA disabil- ity compensation for alimony when the veteran has waived a portion of military retirement pay to receive disability compensation. II Mr. Rhone argues that he is entitled, under 38 U.S.C. § 511(a), to review by the Board of the state garnishment order for alimony. Appellant’s Br. at 26–27. He argues

§ 659(a); Compare Howell v. Howell, 137 S. Ct. at 1403 (ex- plaining that “divisible property” is “community property divisible upon divorce”), with § 659(i)(2) (defining “child support” as “amounts . . . for the support and maintenance of a child . . . which provides for monetary support, health care, arrearages or reimbursement, and which may include other related costs and fees, interest and penalties, income withholding, attorney's fees, and other relief”), and § 659(i)(3)(A), (B)(ii) (defining “alimony” as “periodic pay- ments of funds for the support and maintenance of the spouse (or former spouse) of the individual, and (subject to and in accordance with State law) includes separate maintenance, alimony pendente lite, maintenance, and spousal support” and “does not include . . . any payment or transfer of property or its value by an individual to the spouse or a former spouse of the individual in compliance with any community property settlement, equitable distri- bution of property, or other division of property between spouses or former spouse”). Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 14 Filed: 11/17/2022

that the VA’s refusal to undertake such a review violates his due process rights. Id. We disagree. We have explained that “[g]arnishment is purely a creature of state law” that is “routinely provided by state law for enforcement of court-ordered child support and ali- mony (a judgment debt).” Millard v. United States, 916 F.2d 1, 3 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Because garnishment is a matter of state law, any violations of due process “would have been violated by the [state] court that issued the order, not the United States which merely complied with that order as it was required to do.” Id. at 8. Thus, any challenges to the garnishment order are properly heard in the state that is- sued the garnishment order. Because garnishment of alimony is a matter of state law provided by state courts, § 511(a) does not entitle a vet- eran to a second opportunity for adjudication of that matter within the VA system. Section 511(a) states that “[t]he Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact neces- sary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans.” 38 U.S.C. § 511(a) (emphasis added). Without a decision by the Secretary, the Board has no jurisdiction. See Bates v. Nicholson, 398 F.3d 1355, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (“Section 511(a) does not apply to every challenge to an action by the VA. . . . [I]t only ap- plies where there has been a ‘decision by the Secretary.’” (citing Hanlin v. United States, 214 F.3d 1319, 1321 (Fed. Cir. 2000))). Because garnishment of alimony is a matter of state law provided by state courts, it is not a decision “by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of ben- efits by the Secretary.” Cf. id. Indeed, Mr. Rhone agrees that “[a]ny appellate review, if one takes place at all, is with the same state court that initially ordered the gar- nishment of the waived retired pay.” See Appellant’s Br. at 27. Thus, the Veterans Court correctly determined that Mr. Rhone is not entitled, under § 511(a), to adjudication by the VA as to the merits of the garnishment order issued Case: 22-1360 Document: 26 Page: 15 Filed: 11/17/2022

RHONE V. MCDONOUGH 15

by the State Court and affirmed by the State Appellate Court. 5 CONCLUSION We have considered Mr. Rhone’s remaining arguments and do not find them persuasive. For the foregoing rea- sons, we affirm the decision of the Veterans Court. AFFIRMED COSTS No costs.

5 Mr. Rhone also argues that VA General Counsel Precedential Opinion 4-97, 1997 WL 34674459 (Jan. 22, 1997), violates his due process rights by foreclosing any re- view within the VA adjudication system of regional office decisions relating to state garnishment orders. Appellant’s Br. at 2, 24–29. Our determination that challenges to a state garnishment order must be heard in the state that issued the order remains true regardless of whether or not Precedential Opinion 4-97 is in effect.