Citation Nr: 18146481 Decision Date: 10/31/18 Archive Date: 10/31/18 DOCKET NO. 15-32 361 DATE: October 31, 2018 ORDER The Veteran’s appeal of the propriety of the $52.00 per month special apportionment of his VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of his dependent daughter, K.V., from April 1, 2012 to April 1, 2015, is denied. FINDING OF FACT K.V. experienced hardship due to inadequate financial support from April 1, 2012 to April [redacted], 2015, and the evidence fails to establish the $52.00 per month special apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits on her behalf during this period caused undue hardship to the Veteran. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for revocation of the $52.00 per month special apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of his dependent daughter, K.V., from April 1, 2012 to April [redacted], 2015, have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5307 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 3.451 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a March 2013 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in San Juan, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, that granted a $52.00 per month special apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of his dependent daughter, K.V., effective April 1, 2012. The special apportionment was terminated effective April [redacted], 2015, when K.V. reached 18 years of age. The appellee in this matter is K.V.’s custodial parent, W.H. VA regulations provide for a special apportionment of disability compensation benefits between the veteran and his or her dependents on the basis of the facts in the individual case where hardship is shown to exist, as long as it does not cause undue hardship to the other persons in interest. 38 C.F.R. § 3.451. In determining the basis for a special apportionment, consideration will be given to such factors as: 1) the amount of VA benefits payable; 2) other resources and income of the veteran and those dependents in whose behalf apportionment is claimed; and 3) special needs of the veteran, his or her dependents, and the apportionment claimants. Id. Ordinarily, apportionment of more than 50 percent of the veteran’s benefits would constitute undue hardship on the veteran, while apportionment of less than 20 percent would not provide a reasonable amount for any apportionee. Id. Here, the record establishes K.V. did not reside with the Veteran during the apportionment period, but rather lived with her mother, W.H., throughout the apportionment period. In March 2012, W.H. submitted a VA Form 21-0788 (Information Regarding Apportionment of Beneficiary’s Award) that indicates she had $815.00 in monthly expenses with only $620.00 in monthly income while providing for K.V. Thus, the Board finds K.V. experienced hardship due to inadequate financial support at the time the special apportionment was awarded. The Board acknowledges the Veteran’s assertion that W.H. remarried after the special apportionment was granted; therefore, allegedly increasing her household income to the extent a special apportionment is no longer warranted. The Board finds the Veteran’s statement standing alone is insufficient to overcome the finding of hardship in K.V.’s case given W.H.’s expenses were approximately 130 percent of her income at the time the special apportionment was granted. The Veteran’s statements clearly acknowledge that there were other children in W.H.’s household, and that W.H.’s husband was a student while providing for several dependents. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.451. As a result, the Board concludes K.V. experienced hardship due to inadequate financial support throughout the apportionment period despite the Veteran’s assertion that W.H. is now presently remarried. The Board also finds the evidence fails to establish a $52.00 per month special apportionment on K.V.’s behalf from April 1, 2012 to April [redacted], 2015 caused undue hardship to the Veteran. The Board notes $52.00 per month was the rate of the Veteran’s dependency allowance for K.V. at the time the special apportionment was awarded. The Veteran subsequently received a retroactive increase in rating that concurrently increased the dependency allowance he received for K.V. Thus, the special apportionment is less than the dependency allowance the Veteran received for K.V. The Veteran cannot prevail on a claim of hardship when he received an additional benefit for K.V. and the apportioned amount is no more than that additional benefit. Hall v. Brown, 5 Vet. App. 294, 295 (1993). In reaching this determination, the Board acknowledges W.H. received a monthly benefit from the Social Security Administration (SSA) on behalf of K.V., but this is not a garnishment of the Veteran’s SSA benefits and is rather a separate entitlement for K.V. based on the Veteran’s eligibility for SSA benefits. Essentially, the special apportionment awarded on behalf of K.V. cannot, as a matter of law, cause undue hardship to the Veteran because it is less than the dependency allowance he receives on her behalf. In sum, the Board finds K.V. experienced hardship due to inadequate financial support from April 1, 2012 to April [redacted], 2015, and the evidence fails to establish the $52.00 per month special apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits on her behalf during this period caused undue hardship to the Veteran. Thus, the criteria for revocation of the $52.00 per month special apportionment on behalf of K.V. from April 1, 2012 to April [redacted], 2015 have not been met, and the Veteran’s appeal in this regard must be denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5307; 38 C.F.R. § 3.451. M. HYLAND Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD L. S. Kyle, Counsel