Citation Nr: 18142551 Decision Date: 10/16/18 Archive Date: 10/16/18 DOCKET NO. 14-25 932 DATE: October 16, 2018 REMANDED Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation benefits is remanded. Entitlement to survivor pension benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1972 to April 1975. The Veteran died in October 2008. The appellant is the Veteran’s surviving spouse. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from October 2009 and April 2011 decision letters issued by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Pension Management Center (PMC) in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. 1. Entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation benefits is remanded. In addition to survivor’s pension benefits discussed below, the decision letters on appeal also denied entitlement to dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) benefits. Following the initial denial in October 2009, the appellant submitted two notices of disagreement, one pertaining to DIC and one addressing the denial of survivor’s pension. Rather than issue a statement of the case right away, the PMC issued the April 2011 letter confirming its prior denial. In May 2011, the appellant submitted a new notice of disagreement which specifically stated that she wished to appeal the denial of pension benefits, but also proposed an argument and addressed the criteria the PMC states was deficient in denying her claim for DIC benefits. Therefore, the Board finds that the May 2011 notice of disagreement also reasonably appealed the denial of DIC benefits. To date a statement of the case has not been issued with regard to that claim. As such, a remand is required for the AOJ to issue a statement of the case. 38 C.F.R. § 20.200; Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). 2. Entitlement to survivor pension benefits is remanded. Inasmuch as the Board regrets further delay in the adjudication of this claim, a remand is necessary. The appellant’s claim for survivor pension benefits has been denied to date because her household income exceeds the maximum annual pension rate (MAPR) for the periods on appeal. When calculating household income, income from dependent children, to include any government benefits such as Social Security, must be considered. The appellant contends that she personally did not have any income during the periods on appeal (ot at least through December 2011 when evidence shows she became eligible for Social Security benefits). However, the appellant did have two minor children during various periods on appeal who received income from both the Illinois Department of Children’s and Family Services (DCFS), and also the Social Security Administration (SSA). Unfortunately, the appellant’s reports of income are somewhat inconsistent and therefore the Board must rely upon confirmed documentation from various income sources during the periods on appeal to adjudicate this claim. The appellant, in her VA Form 9 (Appeal to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals), conceded that she likely did not meet the MAPR prior to her daughter, B.T., reaching the age of majority and losing her DCFS and SSA benefits. However, her younger child, C.T., continued to receive both benefits thereafter. Although a letter was received from DCFS indicating amounts paid for each child and cut-off dates for benefits, it is unclear whether C.T. continued to received SSA benefits after his DCFS benefits were stopped (the Board notes that SSA confirmation reports for the appellant and B.T. are available, but not for C.T.). As any SSA income received by C.T. during the various periods on appeal would directly impact the household income of the appellant prior to her receiving SSA benefits in late 2011, the Board must remand this claim for further development of C.T.’s SSA income prior to December 2011. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Invite the appellant to submit any additional evidence in support of her claim, to include any evidence of income received by her or either of her children during the period on appeal. 2. The AOJ should make an effort to obtain any further available evidence of income received by C.T. (the younger child) during the period on appeal. Particularly, efforts should be made to obtain a basic SSA inquiry of C.T.’s Social Security income for the periods in question.   3. Send the appellant and her representative a statement of the case that addresses the issue of entitlement to DIC benefits. If the appellant perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. B.T. KNOPE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Pryce, Associate Counsel