Citation Nr: 1552622	
Decision Date: 12/16/15    Archive Date: 12/23/15

DOCKET NO.  14-10 075	)	DATE
	)
	)

On appeal from the
Department of Veterans Affairs Regional Office in Los Angeles, California


THE ISSUES

Entitlement to dependency benefits.

(The issue of the validity of an overpayment of compensation benefits in the calculated amount of $55,026.12, is the subject of a separate decision).


REPRESENTATION

Veteran represented by:	Robert V. Chisholm, Esq.


ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD

K. Conner, Counsel



INTRODUCTION

The Veteran served on active duty from October 1974 to September 1976.  This matter came to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a December 2013 determination of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Los Angeles, California.

The Board notes that in addition to the dependency issue, the issue of the validity of an overpayment of compensation benefits in the calculated amount of $55,026.12, is on appeal before the Board.  Given the nature of these two issues, separate decisions are required.  The issue of entitlement to dependency benefits will be the subject of this decision and the issue of the validity of an overpayment of compensation benefits in the calculated amount of $55,026.12, will be addressed in a separate decision.  See BVA Directive 8430, Board of Veterans' Appeals, Decision Preparation and Processing, 14(c)(10)(a)(2) (providing that because they differ from other issues so greatly, separate decisions shall be issued in overpayment cases in order to produce more understandable decision documents).

The appeal is REMANDED to the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ).  VA will notify the Veteran if further action is required.


REMAND

In a December 2013 determination, the RO denied the Veteran's request for dependency benefits.  Later that month, the Veteran filed a notice of disagreement with the RO's determination.  The record currently available to the Board contains no indication that the Veteran and his attorney have been provided with a Statement of the Case addressing this issue.  Under these circumstances, a remand is required.  Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).  


Accordingly, the case is REMANDED for the following action:

Issue a Statement of the Case to the Veteran and his attorney addressing the issue of entitlement to dependency benefits.  The Statement of the Case should include all relevant law and regulations pertaining to the claim.  The Veteran must be advised of the time limit in which he may file a substantive appeal, if he so desires.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b) (2015).  This issue should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, only if an appeal is properly perfected.

The Veteran has the right to submit additional evidence and argument on the matter or matters the Board has remanded.  Kutscherousky v. West, 12 Vet. App. 369 (1999).

This claim must be afforded expeditious treatment.  The law requires that all claims that are remanded by the Board of Veterans' Appeals or by the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims for additional development or other appropriate action must be handled in an expeditious manner.  See 38 U.S.C.A. §§ 5109B, 7112 (West 2014).



_________________________________________________
K. MILLIKAN
Veterans Law Judge, Board of Veterans' Appeals

Under 38 U.S.C.A. § 7252 (West 2014), only a decision of the Board of Veterans' Appeals is appealable to the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.  This remand is in the nature of a preliminary order and does not constitute a decision of the Board on the merits of your appeal.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1100(b) (2015).