Citation Nr: 20006019 Decision Date: 01/24/20 Archive Date: 01/23/20 DOCKET NO. 17-43 868 DATE: January 24, 2020 REMANDED The issue of whether the award of apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits was proper is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2011 to September 2011. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2016 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The Board acknowledges that the Veteran submitted a supplemental claim opt-in election form that was received by VA in December 2019. However, as the claim involves the issue of apportionment, it is ineligible for adjudication under RAMP. Thus, the Board will undertake appellate review of the case. The issue of whether the award of apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits was proper is remanded. After a review of the evidence in this case, the Board has determined that this matter 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 (2012) 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 (2018). 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 Veteran, who is the non-prevailing party, contends that his spouse on behalf of their minor child, is not entitled to an apportionment of his VA disability benefits. The Veteran’s spouse is the prevailing party, as an apportionment of the Veteran’s benefits to her, on behalf of the child was granted. In this case, it appears compliance with the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims was not satisfied. Specifically, the Veteran’s spouse was not provided with a copy of the June 2017 SOC, the content of the Veteran’s August 2017 substantive appeal, or the June 2019 Board certification letter. Specifically, the record reflects that the June 2017 SOC was sent to the Veteran, but was not sent to the spouse, and that the content of the substantive appeal was not sent to her. 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’s spouse with a copy of the June 2017 SOC, as well as the content of the August 2017 substantive appeal and a Board certification letter. The record reflects that the Veteran’s spouse submitted a June 2016 VA Form 21-0788, which included her monthly income and expenses. On remand, she is advised to provide updated evidence regarding her monthly income and expenses. The Board notes that the Veteran recently updated his financial information in December 2019. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04. Specifically, ensure that the Veteran’s spouse is provided with a copy of the June 2017 SOC, as well as the content of the Veteran’s August 2017 substantive appeal and a Board certification letter. 2. Inform the Veteran’s spouse of her right to submit a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) and to have a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (should she so elect). 3. Request that the Veteran’s spouse provide updated income and expense information, to include any support provided to her by the Veteran. 4. Readjudicate the claim on appeal. MICHAEL KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Erin J. Trojanowski, Associate 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.