Citation Nr: 18152326
Decision Date: 11/21/18	Archive Date: 11/21/18

DOCKET NO. 14-35 333
DATE:	November 21, 2018
REMANDED
Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits to the appellant on behalf of the Veteran’s dependent child, D.W., is remanded.
REASONS FOR REMAND
The Veteran served on active duty from November 1978 to June 1985.  The appellant is the mother and custodian of the Veteran’s dependent child D.W. 
This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a May 2011 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) located in Detroit, Michigan.
Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits
After a review of the evidence in this case, the Board has determined that the issue as developed by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA benefits to the appellant on behalf of D.W., is not ripe for appellate review as all steps necessary to ensure the procedural and due process rights of the parties have not been completed.
This case involves a simultaneously contested claim; therefore, the provisions of 38 U.S.C. § 7105A (West 2014) are applicable.  Cases involving simultaneously contested claims are also subject to special procedural regulations.  See 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102, 20.500, 20.501, 20.502, 20.503, 20.504 (2017).  Specifically, 38 C.F.R. § 19.100 provides that, in a simultaneously contested claim, all interested parties are to be notified of the action taken by the AOJ and of the right and time limit for initiating an appeal, as well as notification of the right to a hearing and representation.  Upon the filing of a notice of disagreement, all interested parties will be furnished a copy of the statement of the case (SOC).  38 C.F.R. § 19.101.  When a substantive appeal is filed, the content will be furnished to the other contesting parties to the extent that it contains information which 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.
Here, the appellant, who is the non-prevailing party, contends that she is entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability benefits on behalf of the Veteran’s dependent child D.W.  The Veteran is the prevailing party, as apportionment of his benefits to the appellant was denied.
In this case, it appears that the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims have not been complied with.  Specifically, the Veteran was not provided with a copy of the December 2013 SOC or the content of the appellant’s February 2014 substantive appeal.  The record reflects that the December 2013 SOC was sent to the appellant, but was not sent to the Veteran, and that the content of the substantive appeal was not sent to the Veteran.  Accordingly, the Board finds that remand is necessary in order to ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04, to include providing the Veteran with a copy of the December 2013 SOC, as well as the content of the appellant’s February 2014 substantive appeal at his current address of record.

The matter is REMANDED for the following action:
Ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04.  Specifically, ensure that the Veteran is provided with a copy of the December 2013 SOC, as well as the content of the appellant’s February 2014 substantive appeal at the Veteran’s current address of record.
 
JONATHAN B. KRAMER
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J. Ragheb, Counsel