Citation Nr: 18146912
Decision Date: 11/02/18	Archive Date: 11/01/18

DOCKET NO. 16-28 471
DATE:	November 2, 2018
REMANDED
The issue of recognition of M.S. as the Veteran's surviving spouse for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) purposes is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from April 1976 to April 1979.  Unfortunately, he died in April 2013.  The appellant asserts that she is the Veteran’s surviving spouse.
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2013 decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Manila, Republic of the Philippines, which denied the appellant’s claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC), death pension, and accrued benefits on the basis that she was not the Veteran’s spouse at the time of his death.  
1. Entitlement to recognition of M.S. as the Veteran's surviving spouse for VA purposes is remanded.
In a June 2013 rating decision, the RO granted service connection for the cause of the Veteran’s death.  In a February 2014 letter, the RO notified L.S. that she was being paid as the Veteran’s surviving spouse.  As the determination of recognition of M.S. as the Veteran’s surviving spouse could result in a denial of benefits to L.S., this matter is a “contested claim” requiring compliance with additional regulations.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-19.102, 20.500-20.504, 20.713 (2017).
Upon the filing of a notice of disagreement (NOD) in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties will be furnished with a statement of the case (SOC).  38 C.F.R. § 19.101. 
When a substantive appeal is filed in a simultaneously contested claim, the content of the substantive appeal will be furnished to the other contesting parties to the extent that it contains information that could directly affect the payment or potential payment of the benefit which is the subject of the contested claim.  38 C.F.R. § 19.102.
A close review of the claims file reveals that VA has not fulfilled its obligations under the procedures relating to contested claims.  Specifically, L.S. was not provided a copy of the May 2016 SOC and June 2015 substantive appeal.  To ensure compliance with all specialized contested claim procedures, this deficiency must be corrected on remand.
The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
1.  Review the claims file and ensure that all contested claim procedures have been followed to include all necessary notice to L.S.
Furnish L.S. with the May 2016 SOC and the contents of the appellant’s June 2015 substantive appeal.
(Continued on the next page)
 
2.  Then, readjudicate the issue on appeal.
 
S. B. MAYS
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	M. Thomas, Associate Counsel