Citation Nr: 1007802 Decision Date: 03/02/10 Archive Date: 03/11/10 DOCKET NO. 04-16 432 ) DATE ) ) On appeal from the Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Waco, Texas THE ISSUE Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran's Department of Veterans Affairs disability compensation on behalf of his minor child with the appellant. REPRESENTATION Appellant represented by: Texas Veterans Commission Veteran represented by: Disabled American Veterans ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD K. Conner, Counsel INTRODUCTION The Veteran served on active duty from January 1968 to January 1970, and from May 1984 to October 1991. The appellant in this case is the mother of C.M., one of the Veteran's minor children. This matter originally came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a September 2003 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas, which denied the appellant's claim for apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability benefits on behalf of C.M. The appellant appealed the RO's decision to the Board. In a July 2008 decision, the Board denied apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability benefits on behalf of C.M. The appellant appealed the Board's decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court). While the matter was pending before the Court, in September 2009, the appellant's then-attorney and a representative of VA's General Counsel, on behalf of the Secretary, filed a joint motion for remand. In a September 2009 order, the Court granted the motion, vacated the Board's July 2008 decision, and remanded the matter for readjudication. The Board notes that on a February 2008 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board, the appellant checked a box indicating that she wished to attend a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge at the RO. According to a March 2008 Report of Contact, however, the appellant subsequently indicated that she wanted the Board to proceed with consideration of her case immediately. Subsequently in March 2008, the appellant submitted a signed statement indicating that she felt she had made her case clear; that she had no additional evidence to furnish, and that she did not desire to wait for a 60 day due process period to expire. Based on these facts, in its July 2008 decision, the Board determined that the appellant wanted to proceed expeditiously and no longer desired a hearing. Having received no additional communication from the appellant regarding a hearing, and absent any reference to a hearing in the parties' September 2009 joint motion, the Board again finds it appropriate to proceed with appellate review. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. C.M. was born to the Veteran and the appellant in September 1999, and resides with the appellant. 2. The Veteran has been meeting his child support obligations to the appellant and C.M., including providing $290 monthly, as well as health insurance. 3. Despite being given the opportunity to do so on numerous occasions, the appellant has failed to provide clear and accurate information regarding her monthly income and expenses. Based on the information currently of record, hardship has not been demonstrated. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of C.M. have not been met. 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5307, 5107 (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.450, 3.451 (2009). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) As a preliminary matter, the Board notes that the Veterans Claims Assistance Act of 2000 (VCAA) does not apply in this case, given the nature of the issue on appeal. The United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) has held that the VCAA applies only to claims for benefits filed under Chapter 51 of Title 38, United States Code. See e.g. Barger v. Principi, 16 Vet. App. 132, 138 (2002); Lueras v. Principi, 18 Vet. App. 435 (2004); Livesay v. Principi, 15 Vet. App. 165, 179 (2001)(en banc). Apportionment, the matter at issue in this case, is governed by Chapter 53, United States Code, and involves a determination as to how existing benefits are paid. Thus, the VCAA does not apply. See also Sims v. Nicholson, 19 Vet. App. 453, 456 (2006) (holding that the VCAA does not apply to claims for restoration of competency as the applicant "is not seeking benefits under Chapter 51, but, rather, is seeking a decision regarding how his benefits will be distributed under Chapter 55"). In any event, the Board notes that the parties have been repeatedly and adequately advised of the applicable legal criteria in the case, as evidenced by numerous letters to the parties as well as the Statements of the Case and Supplemental Statements of the Case. A review of the record indicates that the RO has appropriately developed this appeal in accordance with the due process requirements for simultaneously contested claims. Neither the Veteran nor the appellant has argued otherwise. 38 U.S.C.A. § 7105A (West 2002); 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-102, 20.500-504 (2009). Additionally, the record shows that the RO has repeatedly advised the appellant of the information and evidence necessary to substantiate her claim for apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits. Indeed, the record shows that the RO has repeatedly contacted the appellant, by both letter and by telephone, in an attempt to ascertain complete and accurate information regarding her income and expenses. In that regard, the Board notes that the duty to assist "is not always a one-way street. If a [claimant] wishes help, he cannot passively wait for it in those circumstances where he may or should have information that is essential in obtaining the putative evidence." Wood v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 190, 193 (1991). In other words, if the appellant wished to demonstrate hardship for purposes of obtaining a portion of the Veteran's compensation benefits on behalf of her child with the Veteran, she could only do so by cooperating with VA. As set forth below, she has failed to do so. Thus, the duty to assist, as it may be applied to an apportionment claim, was satisfied to the extent possible in light of the failure of the appellant to provide all of the necessary information. The Board also observes that in the September 2009 Joint Motion discussed above, the parties identified no fault in VA's compliance with any notification or development actions. Rather, the sole basis for remand was the Board's failure to provide adequate reasons and bases for its July 2008 decision, with discussion of the pertinent evidence. Thus, if the parties to the Joint Motion believed the Board's discussion of the VCAA or VA's evidentiary development was in any way problematical, they would have undoubtedly explained such potential error in the body of the Joint Motion. They did not. See Harris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 180, 183 (1991) (holding that the "Court will [not] review BVA decisions in a piecemeal fashion"); see also Fugere v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 103, 105 (1990), aff'd, 972 F.2d 331 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (noting that "[a]dvancing different arguments at successive stages of the appellate process does not serve the interests of the parties or the Court"). Thus, the Board will proceed with consideration of the claim, based on the evidence of record. Background The Veteran has been in receipt of VA disability compensation since 1991. Effective April 11, 2003, he was awarded VA disability compensation at the 100 percent rate, plus special monthly compensation, with additional allowances for numerous dependents, including several minor children and a spouse. C.M. was born to the appellant in September 1999. A birth certificate and Court order establishes C.M. as the biological child of the Veteran. In March 2003, the appellant submitted a request for an apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation for the care of C.M. According to an April 2003 Report of Contact, the appellant indicated that although she already received monthly child support from the Veteran for the support of C.M., she needed more money because C.M. had asthma. In an April 2003 letter, the RO asked the appellant and the Veteran to provide detailed financial information, including itemized monthly income from all sources, a list of average monthly expenses, and the value of all assets. In an April 2003 letter, the appellant indicated that although the Veteran currently paid her $280 in monthly child support, she was in the process of seeking an increase in that amount from the court. She explained that she was employed and "didn't mind working," but felt that because she was raising C.M. on her own, "the least [the Veteran] can do is help in the support." The appellant indicated that her monthly rent was $791, plus water. She did not otherwise provide an accounting of her monthly income or expenses, although she attached photocopies of various bills which she claimed were evidence of expenses and debts she had incurred since C.M. had been born. These photocopies included an invoice from a child care center which appears to show that the appellant paid approximately $420 in monthly child care expenses in May and June 2003. Also included were various invoices showing past due amounts for charges such as utilities, a retail store, and medical care providers, although it is not possible to discern the monthly amounts due or when all of these charges were incurred. In September 2003, the RO denied the appellant's claim for apportionment, noting that the available record indicated that the Veteran was discharging his responsibility for the support of C.M. and that he currently provided child support well in excess of the dependency allowance. The appellant was reminded that she had failed to provide VA with requested information regarding her income and expenses. She was advised that if she wanted VA to reconsider her claim, she "must submit a monthly breakdown of all income and expenses for your household." See January 2004 Statement of the Case. In February 2004, the appellant responded with a list of her claimed monthly expenses as follows: $767 for rent, $29.94 for water, $254.17 for electric, $114 for an unspecified "bank note," $59 for car insurance, $145 for day care, $20 for transportation, and $142.40 for phone. The appellant again failed to provide an accounting of her monthly income, although she indicated that she "was drawing unemployment benefits." Attached to her letter was a copy of IRS E-file Signature Authorization showing a 2003 adjusted gross income for the appellant of $11,901, plus a tax refund of $1,064. The form contains no indication of the source of her 2003 income. In her April 2004 VA Form 9, the appellant claimed that she was entitled to apportionment of the Veteran's VA benefits as a court had awarded her monthly child support and "our child has a history of asthma which causes large medical costs." In support of her appeal, the appellant provided copies of documents associated with litigation she had initiated in an attempt to obtain an increase in her monthly child support from the Veteran. These documents include copies of 2003 letters from her attorney to the Veteran's attorney alleging that the Veteran had failed to provide complete records pertaining to his business and rental properties, including a barbershop and a home health care business he and his spouse owned. The documents also include a May 2004 court order increasing the amount of the Veteran's monthly child support for C.M. from $280 to $290. The Veteran was also ordered to continue to provide C.M. with health insurance, as well as pay 50% of her uninsured health care expenses. Documents associated with the litigation also include a December 2003 letter from the appellant's attorney to the appellant. In the letter, the appellant's attorney reminded the appellant that she had advised her against proceeding with the litigation to modify her child support absent any proof that the Veteran had any substantial income from his barbershop or health care businesses. She noted that the Veteran had testified that the barbershop was not in operation and that the appellant had failed to obtain information to the contrary. In a December 2004 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO again advised the appellant that absent the complete income information they had repeatedly requested from her, apportionment continued to be denied as the record showed that the Veteran was paying child support for C.M. In January 2005, the appellant submitted another accounting of her claimed monthly expenses, consisting of $860 in rent, $500 per month for education/childcare, $294.37 for phone, $102.75 for electricity, $106 for storage, $45 in transportation, $1,004.93 and $818.94, respectively, on two credit cards, as well as $339.04 for pediatric pulmonary care and $43 to express script, although these latter amounts appear to be debts rather than monthly expenses. The appellant also attached a letter from her employer who indicated that the appellant had worked full time since August 2004, earning $10 per hour, or $1,600 monthly. In an attached letter, the appellant complained that in pursuing increased child support payments, she had been harassed by various parties, apparently including her attorney, the judge who heard her case, the Attorney General's Office, and the Veteran, which had created a hardship for her. She claimed that since 2001, she had been evicted, her credit had been ruined, and she had lost her car. The appellant submitted various documents showing that she had been served with an eviction notice for nonpayment of rent, in November 2004. Her outstanding debt to her landlord was $3,791.90, plus $960 in attorneys' fees. She also submitted a copy of a July 2004 application for public housing. On the application, she listed her annual income as $3,480 in child support payments. She reported that she was unemployed and denied income from all other sources. In a March 2005 letter, the RO sought clarification of the monthly expenses reported by the appellant in January 2005, including whether the bills she had reported were monthly expenses or total debts. She was also again asked to provide the amount of her net monthly income, to account for any taxes or deductions from her pay. In April 2005, the appellant responded that she paid $867.80 for rent, $20 for gas, $80 for a storage fee and $141 per week for school. She failed to provide the clarification requested by the RO regarding her reported expenses. She did provide an April 2005 letter from her employer who indicated that for the month of March 2005, the appellant had received a net income of $1,781.89. In April 2005, the Veteran reported that he had monthly expenses in the amount of $4,440.47, including mortgages, utilities, car payments, insurance, and child support. In an accompanying letter, the Veteran indicated that in addition to monthly child support for C.M., he also provided her with Tricare Insurance and education benefits. With respect to his monthly income, the Veteran indicated that he received VA benefits, military retirement benefits, and Social Security benefits and provided photocopies of his monthly checks. [The RO subsequently associated computer printouts with the record on appeal noting that from January 2005, C.M. received $187 monthly under the Veteran's Social Security benefits and the Veteran received $753 monthly. C.M.'s benefit was reduced to $126 monthly effective April 2005]. In May 2005, the RO contacted the appellant by telephone in another attempt to clarify her monthly expenses. She was specifically asked to report her average monthly expenses and income in full. The appellant indicated that the $339.04 to the Pediatric Pulmonary Associates had been paid and the $43 to Express Script had been paid but that she had another bill from the latter. The RO requested that the appellant combine all of her medical expenses and report what her average monthly payment was. In a subsequent May 2005 report the appellant indicated that her monthly expenses included $864 for rent, $100 for food, $100 for clothes, $564 for school, $60 for gas and $80 for storage. She also had two medical bills, one for $1352 and one for $549.28 that had already been sent to collection. Additionally she had $67.38 in monthly expenses for doctor bills. She did not provide any income information. A February 2006 report shows that C.M. was referred for ADHD screening based on her behavior in kindergarten. It was noted that C.M. also had asthma. A March 2006 psychological report shows that C.M. was diagnosed as having obsessive compulsive disorder and adjustment disorder. Additional psychiatric evaluation was recommended. In a January 2007 statement, the appellant claimed that her only income was $739.62, apparently monthly, that she received on behalf of her daughter, although she failed to specify the source of this income. She claimed that she had no other resources with which to support her daughter and that she was unable to work due to a doctor's order. The appellant also indicated that her monthly expenses were $848 so she had to pay out more than she was taking in. She again listed a number of outstanding debts. In a March 2007 memorandum, a state department of welfare indicated that effective in May 2007, the appellant's rental payments would no longer be provided, as she was now in a position to maintain affordable housing on her own, via SSI benefits and child support. An April 2007 letter shows that the appellant was approved for food stamps in the amount of $193 per month. In a May 2007 Supplemental Statement of the Case, the RO, after considering the information provided by the appellant, again denied her claim for apportionment. The RO advised the appellant that "[i]f you would like to provide a detailed amount of your monthly expenses, not just total amounts owed but actual amounts you pay each month, we will reconsider our decision." In a May 2007 statement the appellant claimed that she had not worked since September 2005. She stated that her current rent was $585 per month and she paid $100 per month in food. Her daughter had special needs. In the calendar year she had spent $857.64 for medication at CVS. She indicated that she had spent $723 at CVS in 2006, as well as $454 annually between 2004 and 2006 at express scripts. Her phone bill was $70 per month. In July 2007, the appellant submitted a VA Form 21-0788, Information Regarding Apportionment of Beneficiary's Award, on which she reported monthly income of $136 in Social Security benefits, $313 in Supplemental Security Income, and $193 in food stamps. She claimed that she had no other income from any source. She did not, however, report child support income from the Veteran. She indicated that her monthly expenses were $585 in rent, $100 for food, and $70 in telephone. She also indicated that she had medical expenses and provided a bill for $225, although the Board observes that this bill was addressed to the Veteran. Analysis The appellant seeks apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of C.M., her child with the Veteran. She contends that because she is raising C.M. on her own, "the least [the Veteran] can do is help in the support." She also appears to argue that she is experiencing hardship due to the financial burdens of caring for a child with medical problems, including asthma. VA regulations provide for two types of apportionments. First, under 38 C.F.R. § 3.450 (2009), "all or any part" of a veteran's compensation benefits may be apportioned if a Veteran's children are not residing with him and he is not reasonably discharging his responsibility for the children's support. It is not necessary for the claimant to establish the existence of hardship in order to obtain an apportionment under 38 C.F.R. § 3.450. See Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 294 (1993). In this case, the record on appeal shows that C.M. resides with the appellant and not with the Veteran. Neither party argues otherwise. With respect to the question of whether the Veteran is reasonably discharging his responsibilities to C.M., the record on appeal contains child support orders showing that the Veteran originally provided the appellant with $280 monthly in child support for C.M. He also maintained health insurance for C.M. and pays half of uninsured medical expenses. Pursuant to litigation initiated by the appellant, his court ordered child support payments were increased to $290 monthly. He continues to provide C.M. with health insurance and pay half of her uninsured medical expenses. Neither party argues otherwise. The Board finds that these facts are highly probative evidence that the appellant is reasonably discharging his duties to C.M. In view of the foregoing, the Board finds that the appellant is not entitled to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits on behalf of C.M. under section 3.450. The second type of apportionment is provided by 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2009). Under that regulation, where hardship is shown to exist, a veteran's compensation may be specially apportioned between such veteran and his dependents on the basis of the facts in the individual case as long as such apportionment would not cause undue hardship to other persons in interest, including the veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2009). In determining the basis for special apportionment, consideration will be given to such factors as the amount of VA benefits payable, other resources and income of the Veteran and the dependents on whose behalf apportionment is claimed; and special needs of the Veteran, his dependents, and the apportionment claimants. The amount of apportionment should generally be consistent with the total number of dependents involved. Ordinarily, apportionment of more than 50 percent of the Veteran's benefits would constitute undue hardship on him or her, while apportionment of less than 20 percent of the Veteran's benefits would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee. 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2009). In this case, the Board finds that hardship has not been shown. As discussed in detail above, the appellant was repeatedly asked to provide complete and accurate monthly income and expense information, but she has failed to do so. Despite significant efforts, the Board has been unable to compile a complete and accurate accounting of the appellant's monthly income and expenses from the information she has provided, as well as the information otherwise complied by the RO. With respect to her income, it appears that it includes (or has included at different period(s) since filing her claim), child support payments from the Veteran in the amount of $280 to $290 monthly; food stamps in the amount of $193 monthly since 2007; SSI benefits in the amount of $313 monthly; Social Security benefits for C.M. as the Veteran's child in the amount of $126 monthly since 2005 (not including retroactive payments); and unemployment benefits in an unknown amount during an unspecified period. The appellant was also provided with rental assistance from April 2006 to April 2007. Finally, as best the Board can discern, the appellant has also earned income from employment. She was apparently employed in 2003 until at least February 2004 (at which time she reported that she "was drawing unemployment benefits."). According to information from an employer, the appellant was again employed from August 2004 to at least March 2005, earning between $1600 and $1,781.89, monthly. The appellant has recently reported that she has not worked since September 2005, although it appears that she did not begin receiving SSI until March 2007. With respect to her expenses, her monthly totals are similarly unclear. The appellant has reported monthly expenses such as rent, child care, utilities, storage, and medical bills. She has also reported significant debt to numerous collection agencies for nonpayment of various bills. Unfortunately, the Board is unable to ascertain a complete and accurate accounting of her monthly expenses and debt payments, based on the information she has provided. For example, she has reported varying amounts of rent. In February 2004, she reported that she paid $767 monthly in rent, although it appears that the appellant did not actually make these payments, as she was served with an eviction notice in November 2004 for nonpayment of rent with an outstanding balance of $3,791, plus attorney's fees. In January 2005, she reported that her rent was $860. In January 2007, she claimed that she paid $585 monthly in rent. The record on appeal, however, contains a March 2007 notice from the Dallas County Home Grant Program showing that the appellant's rental payments were made by Dallas County, not by the appellant, for the period from April 2006 to April 2007, after which time the payments were discontinued as she was in a position to maintain affordable housing on her own. The Board notes that the first relatively complete income and expense report provided by the appellant was the July 2007 VA Form 21-0788, Information Regarding Apportionment of Beneficiary's Award. On that form, she reported monthly income totalling $642. She denied any other income, although the Board notes that she failed to include $290 in monthly child support from the Veteran. Otherwise, assuming arguendo the accuracy and veracity of her reported income information, the appellant had a total of $932 in monthly income. The appellant also reported monthly expenses totalling $755. The appellant also indicated that she had medical expenses, although she failed to delineate them. She did provide a copy of a bill for $225 for care of C.M., although the Board observes that this bill was addressed to the Veteran. Although it is unclear, for purposes of attempting to calculate her monthly income and expenses, the Board will assume this is an uninsured medical expense, for which the appellant is liable for half under her child support agreement with the Veteran. Thus, her monthly expenses would total $867.50, leaving her with a monthly surplus. In summary, based on the financial information provided by the appellant, the Board is unable to conclude that a hardship exists. In reaching this decision, the Board notes that it has specifically considered the appellant's "changing circumstances," but finds that hardship has not been adequately shown at any point during the pendency of this appeal, due in large part to the appellant's repeated failure to provide VA with complete and accurate income and expense information. See September 2009 joint motion at page 2 (noting that "this claim has been pending since 2002 [sic] and while the Board looked solely to the most recent expense report, the Board did not address the Appellant's changing circumstances, including, that in 2004 Appellant had to apply for government regulated affordable housing."). In that regard, the Board notes that the appellant submitted her claim for apportionment in March 2003, not 2002 as the joint motion indicates. Despite the RO's request to the appellant upon receipt of her claim, she failed to provide detailed income and expense information. Although she did provide some expense information in April 2003, the information was incomplete. She noted, for example, that her monthly rent was $791 plus water, and that she paid $420 in monthly child care expenses, she did not provide any other clear monthly expenses. More importantly, she did not provide any income information, although she was apparently gainfully employed at that time. See April 2003 letter from the appellant noting that although she "didn't mind working," she felt that the Veteran should provide more money to her as she was raising C.M. on her own. Based on this information, the Board is unable to conclude, based on the incomplete financial information provided by the appellant, that she was experiencing hardship. Indeed, she did not argue otherwise at the time. Rather, she appeared to contend that apportionment was warranted as a matter of equity, as she was solely responsible for C.M.'s upbringing. Although the appellant's financial picture may have changed over the course of this appeal, she continued to provide VA with incomplete financial information, rendering the Board unable to conclude that a hardship existed at any point during the pendency of this claim. As required by the joint motion, the Board has specifically considered the fact that in July 2004, the appellant completed a supplemental rental application for the purposes of determining whether she was eligible for public housing. On the application, she reported that she was unemployed and that her annual income consisted solely of child support payments totalling $3,480 annually. The Board finds that this application is not demonstrative of hardship, absent complete financial information from the appellant. First, the record on appeal does not indicate whether that the appellant was determined to be eligible for public housing in July 2004, merely that she completed an application. Indeed, the Board notes that approximately two weeks after completing the application, the appellant was earning approximately $1600 monthly. The Board has also considered the appellant's reports to the effect that she has significant debts and has qualified for food stamps. Again, however, the appellant has provided incomplete information in this regard. For example, she has provided numerous medical bills, yet it is unclear whether the appellant is liable for each of these bills. As set forth above, the Veteran provides C.M. with health insurance and is liable for half of her uninsured medical expenses. It is unclear, for example, whether the medical bills provided by the appellant represent her debts or are just billing statement from the treatment providers. Though a significant debt could certainly impact on her ability to provide financially for C.M., absent complete financial information from the appellant, a specific determination cannot be made without resorting to speculation. The Board has also considered the special needs of C.M. The record on appeal includes examination reports showing that she has been diagnosed as having asthma, obsessive compulsive disorder, adjustment disorder, and attention deficit disorder. She requires regular counseling. Again, however, the Veteran provides C.M. with health insurance and pays half of her uninsured medical expenses. With respect to the Veteran's income and expenses, the Board observes that he is in receipt of VA compensation benefits (totalling $3,277 monthly as of November 2005, including additional allowances for numerous minor children plus a spouse), as well as monthly Social Security benefits totalling $753 and military retirement benefits totalling $422.25. His total monthly income is $4,452.25. In April 2005, the Veteran reported that he had monthly expenses in the amount of $4,440.47, including mortgages, utilities, car payments, insurance, and child support. Based on this information, the Board finds that granting an apportionment of the Veteran's VA benefits would significantly constrain his ability to provide for himself and the numerous dependents in his custody. As required by the joint motion, the Board has considered the appellant's allegations to the effect that the Veteran has additional income which he has not reported. The joint motion points to various documents obtained during the course of discovery in the appellant's litigation to obtained increased child support benefits from the Veteran, including documents indicating that he owned properties which included a barbershop and a home health care facility. The Board notes, however, that the Veteran has not reported positive income from these properties or other businesses and there is no reason to doubt his credibility. The fact that one owns real property or a business, in and of itself, is not indicative of a profit. Although such properties have "income producing potential" as the joint motion notes, they also have the potential to produce loss. Indeed, the Board observes that litigation initiated by the appellant for increased child support resulted in an increase of only $10 monthly, from $280 to $290. Given the fact that the court which rendered this child support opinion had the benefit of compelling financial disclosures through the discovery process, the Board finds its decision highly probative evidence of the Veteran's inability to provide increased financial assistance to C.M. The Board also notes that the record on appeal contains a letter from the appellant's own attorney conceding that there was no proof that the Veteran had any substantial income from his barbershop or health care businesses. In summary, after carefully considering the evidence of record, the Board finds that the appellant has provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that a hardship exists. Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that a hardship did exist, the Board finds that an apportionment would not be warranted. The Board has carefully considered the amount of the Veteran's VA benefits and his other resources and income. The Board has also considered the Veteran's expenses as well as the fact that he has numerous dependents relying on him, in addition to C.M. He is not shown to have additional resources to provide to the appellant on behalf of C.M. without resulting in financial hardship to himself and his other dependents. In fact, the record on appeal documents that in February 2005, the RO determined that the Veteran was eligible for a convenience check due to severe hardship as a result of not receiving his February 2005 VA compensation check. It was noted that the Veteran was in dire need of funds to pay his creditors. The Board also notes that the Veteran has been adjudicated totally disabled by VA and SSA. He is clearly limited in his ability to earn additional income on behalf of his family. On the other hand, the Board has considered the special needs of C.M., including asthma and ADHD, but notes that the Veteran is currently providing her with health insurance, a significant contribution towards addressing these special needs. After weighing all of these factors, the Board finds that an apportionment is not warranted. Although apportionment of less than 20 percent of the Veteran's benefits would ordinarily not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee, given that the Veteran has numerous dependents in addition to C.M., and given his limited financial resources, awarding an apportionment to the appellant on behalf of C.M. would cause an undue hardship to the Veteran and his other dependents, particularly when weighed against the incomplete financial information provided by the appellant in support of her claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2009). ORDER Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran's VA disability compensation on behalf of his minor child with the appellant is denied. ____________________________________________ James L. March Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals Department of Veterans Affairs