Citation Nr: 20006089 Decision Date: 01/28/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 19-03 001A DATE: January 28, 2020 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the minor child D.L., is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from June 2000 to April 2006. The appellant is the mother of the parties’ minor child. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2017 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue of entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the minor child D.L., 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 appellant, who is the non-prevailing party, contends that her child is entitled to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability benefits. The Veteran is the prevailing party, as an 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 January 2019 SOC or the content of the appellant’s February 2019 substantive appeal. Additionally, the appellant was not provided with a copy of the June 2019 Board certification letter. Accordingly, the Board finds that a 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 January 2019 SOC and the content of the February 2019 substantive appeal, as well as providing the appellant with a Board certification letter. The record reflects that the appellant submitted a June 2017 VA Form 21-0788, which included her monthly income and expenses. Additionally, the Veteran has not provided a VA Form 21-0788 regarding his monthly income and expenses. On remand, the parties are advised to provide updated evidence regarding their monthly income and expenses. 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 is provided with a copy of the January 2019 SOC and the content of the appellant’s February 2019 substantive appeal. The appellant should also be provided with a Board certification letter. 2. Inform the Veteran of his right to file a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) and to have a hearing before a Veterans Law Judge (should he so elect). 3. Request that both parties provide updated income and expense information, to include any support provided by the Veteran to the appellant for the minor child. 4. Readjudicate the claim on appeal. MICHAEL E. 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.