Citation Nr: 20006137 Decision Date: 01/24/20 Archive Date: 01/24/20 DOCKET NO. 19-24 366 DATE: January 24, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had honorable active military service from September 1954 to August 1956. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)’s February 2019 decision. Entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension benefits is remanded. The Veteran filed a claim for non-service-connected disability pension. Based on his claim for caregiver expenses as an unreimbursed medical expense, he was advised in a January 11, 2019 duty to assist letter that he may be eligible for special monthly pension if he requires the aid and attendance of another person in performing activities of daily living, is severely visually impaired or is permanently housebound. He was asked to submit additional evidence to support entitlement to special monthly pension and the caregiver expense he claimed. In response, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 21-2680, Examination for Housebound Status or Permanent Need for Regular Aid and Attendance, but no other evidence requested in the duty to assist letter. In the February 2019 decision letter, the Veteran’s was denied special monthly pension for failure to respond to the duty to assist letter. His claim for non-service-connected disability pension was denied, therefore, because his countable income exceeded the basic Maximum Annual Pension Rate (MAPR) for a veteran with one dependent. In his notice of disagreement, the Veteran disagreed with the denial of pension benefits essentially on the reason that he should be entitled to special monthly pension. However, when issuing the statement of the case, the Pension Management Center (PMC) only addressed the question of whether the Veteran is entitled to benefits using the basic MAPR (i.e., the Veteran’s underlying pension claim) indicating that the question of special monthly pension would be addressed under separate cover. It appears that the PMC has acknowledged that the Veteran has initiated an appeal as to the claim for special monthly pension but did not issue a statement of the case because the claim was not ready yet for adjudication. The Veteran perfected an appeal as to the underlying pension claim in August 2019 and that was forwarded to the Board for adjudication, while his appeal for special monthly pension remains pending at the PMC. However, the Board finds that the issues of entitlement to non-service-connected disability pension and special monthly pension are inextricably intertwined because determination of the Veteran’s applicable MAPR depends on the outcome of the adjudication of the special monthly pension claim. Thus, the Board finds that remand of the Veteran’s underlying pension claim is appropriate for it to be adjudicated along with the special monthly pension claim and that, if the Veteran’s claim for pension benefits remains denied after resolving the issue of special monthly pension, then the Veteran’s appeal should be returned to the Board. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Readjudicate the Veteran’s underlying claim for non-service-connected disability pension benefits after final adjudication of his claim for special monthly pension. This appeal should be returned to the Board in the following circumstances: (1) If entitlement to special monthly pension remains denied and either (a) a statement of the case is issued and the Veteran fails to perfect an appeal (this appeal returned by itself) or (b) a statement of the case is issued and the Veteran perfects an appeal (this appeal returned with the special monthly pension claim); and (2) If entitlement to special monthly pension is awarded but the claim for pension benefits remains denied. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board S. M. Kreitlow 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.