Citation Nr: 18152567
Decision Date: 11/23/18	Archive Date: 11/23/18

DOCKET NO. 05-21 961
DATE:	November 23, 2018
ORDER
Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability is dismissed. 
Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability is dismissed. 
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. On October 15, 2018, VA received notice that the Veteran died on October [redacted], 2018.  
2. As the Veteran died during the pendency of the claims, and the appellant’s claims do not survive their deaths, VA has no jurisdiction to further adjudicate the claims of entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability and a prostate disability. 
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Due to the death of the Veteran, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the Veteran’s appeal for entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability at this time.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302 (2017).  
2. Due to the death of the Veteran, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the Veteran’s appeal for entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability at this time.  38 U.S.C. § 7104(a) (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302 (2017).  
REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS
The Veteran had active military service in the U.S. Army from September 1980 to April 1987, and from January 1991 to June 1991.  The Veteran died in October 2018.  
Service Connection
1. Entitlement to service connection for a cardiac disability
2. Entitlement to service connection for a prostate disability
Unfortunately, the Veteran died during the pendency of the appeal.  As a matter of law, appellants’ claims do not survive their deaths.  Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994).  This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the Veteran and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.  See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302.
In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran.  38 C.F.R. § 20.1106. 
The Board’s dismissal of this appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claim to completion.  Such request must be filed not later than one year after the date of the appellant’s death.  See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b).  A person eligible for substitution includes “a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title....” 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; see also 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(a).  An eligible party seeking substitution in an appeal that has been dismissed by the Board due to the death of the claimant should file a request for substitution with the VA office from which the claims originated.  See 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). 
Lastly, the Board acknowledges that the claims file reflects that the Veteran’s spouse filed a request for substitution in October 2018, within one year of the Veteran’s death.  However, as the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) has not yet adjudicated her request, the Board may not consider the merits of the aforementioned claims. 

 
T. MAINELLI
Veterans Law Judge
Board of Veterans’ Appeals
ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD	J.L. Reid, Associate Counsel