Citation Nr: 20006418 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 18-19 943 DATE: January 27, 2020 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from April 1969 to July 1970. The appellant married the Veteran in 1996. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an October 2016 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). The issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits 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 she is entitled to an increased amount of apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability benefits. The Veteran is the prevailing party, as an increased amount of 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 March 2018 SOC or the content of the appellant’s March 2018 substantive appeal. 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 March 2018 SOC and the content of the March 2018 substantive appeal. The record further reflects that the appellant submitted an August 2014 VA Form 21-0788, which included her monthly income and expenses. Additionally, the Veteran appellant submitted an August 2016 VA Form 21-0788, which included her monthly income and expenses. On remand, the parties are advised to provide updated evidence regarding their monthly income and expenses. The parties are also asked to verify whether they are still married or if they have been divorced. 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 March 2018 SOC and the content of the appellant’s March 2018 substantive appeal. 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. 4. The parties should also be asked to confirm whether they are still married. 5. 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.