Citation Nr: 19101167 Decision Date: 01/04/19 Archive Date: 01/04/19 DOCKET NO. 16-48 126 DATE: January 4, 2019 REMANDED Entitlement to an annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of an L0628 low back brace is remanded. Entitlement to an annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of a skin medication (Capsaicin 0.025% cream) is remanded. Entitlement to an annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of a skin medication (clotrimazole 1% cream) is remanded. Entitlement to an annual VA clothing allowance for the year 2015 due to the use of a skin medication (triamcinolone acetonide 0.1% ointment) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active military service in the United States Army from June 1978 to September 1978 and from May 1983 to August 1993. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an August 2015 decision issued by the Prosthetics & Sensory Aids Service (PSAS) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Medical Center (VAMC) in North Little Rock, Arkansas. This appeal was processed using both a paper-based claims file and an electronic Veterans Benefits Management System (VBMS). All four clothing allowance issues on appeal are REMANDED for the following reasons: First, in May 2010, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-22a, “Appointment of Individual as Claimant’s Representative” for Virginia A. Girard-Brady, Attorney. This document was signed by both the Veteran and his attorney. The scope of the attorney’s representation of the Veteran before the VA was unlimited. This notwithstanding, there is no indication the VAMC provided copies of the relevant procedural documents for the current clothing allowance appeal to the Veteran’s attorney. In fact, there is no record indicating that the Veteran’s attorney is even aware the Veteran has a clothing allowance appeal pending before the Board. On this issue, both claimants and their representatives are entitled to notice of any decision made by VA affecting the payment of benefits or the granting of relief. Such notice shall clearly set forth the decision made, any applicable effective date, the reason(s) for the decision, the right to a hearing on any issue involved in the claim, the right of representation and the right, as well as the necessary procedures and time limits, to initiate an appeal of the decision. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(b). In fact, a denial of due process can be one particular ground for vacating a Board decision, when the claimant is denied his or her right to representation through action or inaction by the VA or the Board. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.904(a)(1). Therefore, on remand in the present case, to ensure due process, and to avoid prejudice, the VAMC should notify the Veteran’s attorney, Virginia A. Girard-Brady, of the pending clothing allowance appeal. In addition, the VAMC should send copies of the following relevant documents in the claims file to the Veteran’s attorney: (1) the August 2015 VHA decision denying the VA clothing allowance appeal for the year 2015; (2) the August 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC); (3) the February 2015 Application for Annual Clothing Allowance (VA Form 21-8678); (4) the May 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD / VA Form 21-0958); and (5) the September 2016 VA Form 9. Second, the VAMC should clarify for the record how many clothing allowance awards the Veteran has received for the year 2015. On this issue, the claims file contains inconsistent documentation. Specifically, an August 2015 VBMS Compensation and Pension Award lists ONE clothing allowance award (for a left knee brace) for the year 2015 in the gross amount of $777.29. However, a latter October 2016 VBMS Compensation and Pension Award appears to list TWO clothing allowance awards for the year 2015 in the gross amount of $1,554.58. The Board is unsure how to reconcile the inconsistent data on these two documents. Thus, a remand for clarification is required. This matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. The VAMC should notify the Veteran’s attorney, Virginia A. Girard-Brady, of the pending clothing allowance appeal. (It appears the Veteran’s attorney was never previously notified of the pending clothing allowance appeal). In addition, the VAMC should send copies of the following relevant documents in the claims file to the Veteran’s attorney: (a.) The August 2015 VHA decision denying the VA clothing allowance appeal for the year 2015; (b.) The August 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC); (c.) The February 2015 Application for Annual Clothing Allowance (VA Form 21-8678); (d.) The May 2016 Notice of Disagreement (NOD / VA Form 21-0958); and (e.) The September 2016 VA Form 9. 2. The VAMC should clarify for the record how many clothing allowance awards the Veteran has received for the year 2015. (On this issue, the claims file contains inconsistent documentation. Specifically, an August 2015 VBMS Compensation and Pension Award lists ONE clothing allowance award (for a left knee brace) for the year 2015 in the gross amount of $777.29. However, a latter October 2016 VBMS Compensation and Pension Award appears to list TWO clothing allowance awards for the year 2015 in the gross amount of $1,554.58. Thus, clarification of this inconsistent data is required). 3. After completion of steps #1-2, the VAMC should readjudicate the four VA clothing allowance issues on appeal for the year 2015, considering all the evidence of record. If the determination remains unfavorable, provide the Veteran and his attorney with a Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC), to include a summary of the evidence and applicable law and regulations considered. An appropriate period of time should be   allowed for a response before the case is returned to the Board. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD P.S. Rubin, Counsel