Citation Nr: 18150473 Decision Date: 11/15/18 Archive Date: 11/15/18 DOCKET NO. 12-33 024 DATE: November 15, 2018 ORDER For the entire appeal period, an award of additional compensation benefits for claimed dependent parent, D.C., is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. D.C. died in April 2015. 2. For the period prior to D.C.’s death in April 2015, his monthly income exceeded $400. 3. There is no evidence that D.C. had insufficient income to provide for reasonable maintenance. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an additional award of compensation based on claimed dependent parent, D.C., have not been met at any time during the appeal period. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1115, 5107 (2012); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.4, 3.204, 3.250 (2017). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran, who is the appellant in this case, served on active duty from June 1985 to July 1985. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a May 2012 rating decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In February 2016, the Board, in pertinent part, denied aid and attendance or housebound benefits for the Veteran’s father, D.C. The Veteran appealed this decision. In April 2017, the United States Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (Court) granted a Joint Motion for Remand (JMR) by counsel for the Veteran and VA, vacating, in pertinent part, the Board’s February 2016 decision in denying aid and attendance or housebound benefits for the Veteran’s father, and remanded this matter to the Board for appropriate action. In August 2017, the Board remanded this matter for additional development. The Board has limited the discussion below to the relevant evidence required to support its finding of fact and conclusion of law, as well as to the specific contentions regarding the case as raised directly by the Veteran and those reasonably raised by the record. See Scott v. McDonald, 789 F.3d 1375, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Robinson v. Peake, 21 Vet. App. 545, 552 (2008); Dickens v. McDonald, 814 F.3d 1359, 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2016). 1. Entitlement to an award of additional compensation benefits for a dependent parent. The Veteran in this case asserts that he is eligible for additional dependency benefits for D.C., his father. A veteran who is in receipt of disability compensation of 30 percent or more is entitled to an additional allowance for each dependent. 38 U.S.C. § 1115. The Board notes that the Veteran has been in receipt of a 100 percent disability rating throughout the period on appeal. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.250 govern whether a parent can be classified as a dependent parent. This regulation provides that conclusive dependency of a parent (other than one who is residing in a foreign country) will be held to exist where the monthly income does not exceed: (1) $400 (US dollars) for a mother or father not living together; (2) $660 (US dollars) for a mother and father, or remarried parent and spouse, living together; (3) $185 for each additional “member of the family” as defined in paragraph (b)(2). 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(a)(1). Further, where the income exceeds the monthly amounts stated in paragraph (a)(1) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.250, dependency will be determined on the facts in the individual case under the principles outlined in paragraph (b) of 38 C.F.R. § 3.250. In such cases, dependency will not be held to exist if it is reasonable that some part of the corpus of the claimant’s estate be consumed for his or her maintenance. 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(a)(2). If an appellant’s parent’s income is found to exceed the monthly amounts stated 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(a)(1), dependency be determined on the facts of the case under the principles outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(b). Dependency of a parent will be held to exist if the parent does not have an income sufficient to provide for her reasonable maintenance. “Reasonable maintenance” includes housing, food, clothing, medical care, as well as items beyond the bare necessities. “Reasonable maintenance” also includes other requirements reasonably necessary to provide those conveniences and comforts of living suitable to and consistent with the parents’ reasonable mode of life. As an initial matter, the Board notes that D.C. unfortunately died in April 2015. Therefore, from April 2015, forward, the Veteran is not entitled to an increased rate of compensation based on an any additional dependency allowance for D.C. However, the Board considers whether the Veteran is entitled to additional dependency allowance for D.C. prior to his April 2015 death. In February 2014, the Veteran submitted VA Form 21P-509, Statement of Dependency of Parent(s). He stated that D.C.’s monthly income included $1,033.50 from the Social Security Administration (SSA) and $41.12 from a retirement account, for a total monthly income of $1,074.62. No monthly expenses were listed. In October 2017, pursuant to the August 2017 Board remand, VA sent the Veteran a letter asking him to submit his birth certificate and a completed VA Form 21P-509, Statement of Dependency of Parent(s). In October 2017, the Veteran submitted his birth certificate, but stated that “there seems no point to the 21P-509 form. My father is deceased.” The Veteran’s father’s income exceeds the monthly amounts stated 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(a)(1), therefore, dependency will be determined on the facts in the individual case under the principles outlined in 38 C.F.R. § 3.250(b). The question then becomes whether D.C., the Veteran’s father, had a dependency upon the Veteran due to insufficient income to provide for his own reasonable maintenance. However, the Veteran has not reported any monthly expenses for D.C. Therefore, the evidence weighs against a finding that the Veteran’s father was dependent on him for reasonable maintenance, and the claim must be denied. S. B. MAYS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD M. Thomas, Associate Counsel