Citation Nr: 19155367 Decision Date: 07/17/19 Archive Date: 07/17/19 DOCKET NO. 14-08 887 DATE: July 17, 2019 ORDER Withholding of some VA compensation benefits was proper due to concurrent receipt of National Guard drill pay for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010; the appeal is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran received drill pay for a period of 52, 83, 49, and 31 days in fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. 2. The Veteran waived VA benefits for the training days indicated to retain his drill pay. 3. The Veteran’s VA disability compensation properly was offset for concurrent receipt of drill pay. CONCLUSION OF LAW Withholding of some VA compensation benefits was proper due to concurrent receipt of National Guard drill pay for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. 10 U.S.C. § 1231; 38 U.S.C. §§ 5107, 5304(c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.500, 3.654, 3.700. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from April 1986 to September 1993, from March 2005 to June 2006, and from May 2007 to August 2007. He also served in the Army National Guard. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2011 administrative decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Waco, Texas. In September 2016, a Travel Board hearing was held before the undersigned. The case was remanded for further development in December 2017. Whether withholding of some VA compensation benefits was proper due to concurrent receipt of National Guard drill pay for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 In July 2011, VA proposed to create a debt because the Veteran received drill pay for Fiscal Years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010. VA explained that it intended to retroactively adjust the Veteran’s compensation benefits from October 1, 2011, based on 52, 83, 49, and 31 drill days completed in 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, respectively. The Veteran was sent a VA Form 21-8951, “Notice of Waiver of VA Compensation or Pension to Receive Military Pay and Allowances,” which he did not return. The form states that if the Veteran does not return the form, VA will assume he wishes to waive VA compensation or pension for the number of days specified. In October 2011, VA adjusted the Veteran’s compensation benefits through May 2012, to account for the drill days completed in 2007-2010. In October 2011, the Veteran filed a Notice of Disagreement, stating he believed VA already withheld his drill day payments. No other contentions were raised. In a December 2017 remand, the Board requested an audit to address the Veteran’s contention that too much money was taken back in reference to his drill days. A paid and due audit report was associated with his claims file, which verifies he was paid $365,492.20 from July 2007 to April 2019. That is the same amount that the audit reports he was due to be paid for that time period. The paid and due audit does not show that the Veteran had too much money withheld for his drill days. The Board finds that the overpayment for drill pay for fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010 was properly created and correct. The evidence supports finding that the offset of VA disability compensation benefits due to concurrent receipt of active service drill pay was proper. The Veteran has not contended the number of drill days was incorrect, nor has he raised any other contentions regarding the validity of the debt. The Veteran has generally alleged error but has not provided any specific basis for finding the audit submitted incomplete. The Board’s own review did not find any basis for finding this audit to be incomplete or in error.   The Board notes that it is bound by the laws and regulations prohibiting concurrent receipt of active service drill pay and VA disability compensation. See 38 U.S.C. § 5304 (c); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.654, 3.700. The Board finds that the offset of the Veteran’s drill pay against his VA disability compensation from fiscal years 2007, 2008, 2009, and 2010, due to concurrent receipt of both types of compensation was proper. The evidence supports that the amount of money withheld was correct. Accordingly, the claim is denied. Nathaniel J. Doan Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals ATTORNEY FOR THE BOARD A. Dean, Counsel The Board’s decision in this case is binding only with respect to the instant matter decided. This decision is not precedential, and does not establish VA policies or interpretations of general applicability. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1303.