Citation Nr: 18141633
Decision Date: 10/11/18	Archive Date: 10/11/18

DOCKET NO. 15-22 833A
DATE:	October 11, 2018
REMANDED
The issue of whether a timely substantive appeal was filed contesting the validity of the overpayment debt in a March 2010 Debt Management Center (DMC) administrative decision in the amount of $4,917.00 due to change in dependency status for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation benefits purposes.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from August 1962 to September 1965.
The Veteran requested an informal hearing conference at the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) in response to his claim; however, the Veteran’s attorney withdrew the request for an informal hearing in February 2014.  
The Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that the Veteran’s claim initiates from a February 2010 notification letter explaining that notice of a change in dependency status resulted in reduction of compensation benefits and created an overpayment in the account due to removal of a former spouse from his award, effective February 2003, and addition of a current spouse to the award, effective October 2008.  A March 2010 DMC first demand letter explained that the Veteran was paid $4,917.00 more than he was entitled as a result and the Veteran disagreed with the validity of the debt.  A statement of the case (SOC) was furnished on February 14, 2014, to establish the dates the Veteran’s former spouse was removed as a dependent and his current spouse was added as a dependent and to address the validity of the debt created by removal of his former spouse as a dependent.  VA first received a letter from the Veteran’s attorney in April 2014 requesting additional time to file a substantive appeal.  The letter is date stamped by VA on April 17, 2014, but has what appears to be fax machine markings with the date of April 14, 2014.  A VA Form 9 was received in May 2014.  In a July 10, 2014, letter, VA advised the Veteran that the substantive appeal was not accepted and provided him notice of his appellate rights.  That same month, the Veteran’s attorney submitted a notice of disagreement with the July 2014 administrative decision and indicated that a request for an extension was submitted via facsimile on April 14, 2014.
As a notice of disagreement has been received, an SOC must be issued.  See 38 C.F.R. § 19.26; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999).  The claim should be returned to the Board after issuance of the SOC only if perfected by the filing of a timely substantive appeal.  See Smallwood v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 93, 97 (1997).  
(Continued on the next page)








The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Issue an SOC with respect to the claim of whether a timely substantive appeal was filed contesting the validity of the overpayment debt created in a March 2010 DMC administrative decision in the amount of $4,917.00 due to change in dependency status for disability compensation benefits.  The Veteran is advised that a timely substantive appeal must be filed in order to perfect an appeal on this matter.  38 C.F.R. § 20.302(b).  Only if the appeal is timely perfected is the issue to be returned to the Board.
 
Nathan Kroes
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	A. Odya-Weis, Counsel