Citation Nr: 18148566 Decision Date: 11/07/18 Archive Date: 11/07/18 DOCKET NO. 15-25 282 DATE: November 7, 2018 REMANDED The issue of whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the November 1989 rating decision that granted entitlement to nonservice-connected pension, effective July 28, 1987, is remanded. The issue of whether the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with the March 1998 Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) decision letter that denied an effective date earlier than June 7, 1996 for establishment of entitlement to special monthly pension (SMP) on account of the need for regular aid and attendance of another person is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from June 1970 to February 1972. The issue of whether there was CUE in the November 1989 rating decision was originally characterized as whether there was CUE in a Board decision. Therefore, the issue did not originate at the Regional Office (RO). The RO has not issued a decision as to either issue listed above. 1. Whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the November 1989 rating decision that granted entitlement to nonservice-connected pension, effective July 28, 1987 is remanded. In March 2015, the Veteran filed a statement claiming CUE with the 1989 “Rating Board.” As the Board has an obligation to read pro se filings liberally, the Board finds that the Veteran was referring to a November 1989 rating decision. See Robinson v. Shinseki, 557 F.3d 1355 (Fed.Cir. 2009); Comer v. Peake, 552 F.3d 1362, 1368 (Fed. Cir. 2009). There are no other rating decisions issued in 1989 in the Veteran’s claims file. The Veteran did not refer to any other rating or Board decisions in his March 2015 statement. The earliest Board decision in the Veteran’s file is dated in July 1992, and this decision focuses on countable income. The March 2015 statement argues that the Veteran’s SMP with aid and attendance should have been awarded to the Veteran beginning in March 1987, the date of his informal claim for pension. Among other arguments, the Veteran claims that the Veteran’s 1989 examination was inadequate and that the 1989 “Rating Board” should have obtained an adequate examination. The Veteran explained that had functional loss been considered, SMP would have been awarded effective the date of his claim in March 1987. No statement of the case (SOC) has been issued for this issue. Therefore, a remand is needed so that RO can issue an SOC for this issue. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 239 (1999). 2. Whether the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with the March 1998 VBA decision letter that denied an effective date earlier than June 7, 1996 for establishment of entitlement to special monthly pension on account of the need for regular aid and attendance of another person is remanded. In March 2017, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with a March 1998 VBA decision. In a March 28, 2017 decision letter, the RO determined that it could not accept his NOD because the time limit to file a NOD for a March 1998 VBA decision had passed. In a document received in May 2017, the Veteran submitted an NOD with the RO’s March 28, 2017 decision letter. In a May 2017 letter, the RO explained that it was unable to accept the March 2017 NOD because it was intertwined with an appeal. On October 23, 2018, the RO sent a letter to the Veteran acknowledging the Veteran’s March 28, 2017 NOD, but the RO sent a letter on October 31, 2018 explaining that the October 23, 2018 letter had been sent in error and that the issue is currently on appeal with the Board. No statement of the case has been issued in response to the Veteran’s May 2017 NOD with the March 28, 2017 decision letter. As there is no longer a CUE appeal pending, an SOC can be issued. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 239 (1999). The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Send the Veteran a statement of the case that addresses the issue of whether there was clear and unmistakable error (CUE) in the November 1989 rating decision that granted entitlement to nonservice-connected pension, effective July 28, 1987. If the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. (Continued on the next page)   2. Send the Veteran a statement of the case that addresses the issue of whether the Veteran filed a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with the March 1998 VBA decision letter that denied an effective date earlier than June 7, 1996 for establishment of entitlement to special monthly pension on account of the need for regular aid and attendance of another person. If the Veteran perfects an appeal by submitting a timely VA Form 9, the issue should be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration. KRISTI L. GUNN Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD Tahirih S. Samadani, Counsel