Citation Nr: 0814962 Decision Date: 05/06/08 Archive Date: 05/12/08 DOCKET NO. 01-02 770 ) DATE ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Togus, Maine THE ISSUE Entitlement to a compensable evaluation for service-connected dementia praecox, paranoid, in remission, to include whether a July 1945 RO decision that reduced the disability evaluation from 50 percent to 30 percent involved clear and unmistakable error (CUE). REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Francis M. Jackson, Attorney ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD S. D. Regan, Counsel INTRODUCTION The veteran had active service from October 10 1042 to October 22, 1942, and from June 1943 to January 1945. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from December 2001 and November 2005 RO rating decisions. The December 2001 RO decision restored service connection for dementia praecox, paranoid, in remission, and assigned a noncompensable rating, effective December 1, 1947. In September 2003, the Board remanded this appeal for further development. The January 2005 RO decision determined that a July 1945 RO decision that reduced the disability evaluation for dementia praecox, paranoid, in remission, from 50 percent to 30 percent did not involve CUE. A September 2004 motion to advance the case on the Board's docket was granted by the Board in December 2004. In an August 2005 decision, the Board denied the veteran's claim that there was CUE in a July 1945 RO decision that reduced the disability evaluation for dementia praecox, paranoid, in remission, from 50 percent to 30 percent. The Board also denied a compensable rating for dementia praecox, paranoid, in remission, for the period prior to April 30, 1999, and granted a 70 percent rating for dementia, praecox, paranoid, in remission, for the period since April 30, 1999. The veteran then appealed the Board's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). An October 2007 Court order vacated the Board's August 2005 decision and dismissed the veteran's appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to his death in June 2006. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The veteran died on June [redacted], 2006. 2. In an October 2007 order, the Court vacated the Board's August 2005 decision and dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. CONCLUSION OF LAW Due to the death of the veteran, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302 (2007). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Unfortunately, the veteran died during the pendency of the appeal on June [redacted], 2006. The VA Secretary notified the Court of his death in September 2007. In its October 2007 order, after receiving notice that the veteran had died, the Court vacated the August 2005 Board decision, dismissed the appeal, and returned the case to the Board. In July 2006, the Board received a copy of the veteran's death certificate. As a matter of law, appellants' claims do not survive their deaths. Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C.A. § 7104(a) (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302 (2007). In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106 (2007). ORDER The appeal is dismissed. K. J. ALIBRANDO Acting Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs