Citation Nr: 20006465 Decision Date: 01/27/20 Archive Date: 01/27/20 DOCKET NO. 19-03 152A DATE: January 27, 2020 REMANDED The issue of the propriety of the award of an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from May 2002 to December 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a July 2017 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO), which awarded an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to his former spouse for their minor children. The issue of the propriety of the award of an 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 Veteran, who is the non-prevailing party, contends that his former spouse is not entitled to an apportionment of his VA disability benefits for their minor children. The former spouse is the prevailing party, as an apportionment of the Veteran’s benefits was granted. In this case, it appears that the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims have not been complied with. Specifically, the former spouse was not provided with a copy of the content of the Veteran’s February 2019 substantive appeal or the October 2019 Board certification letter. Accordingly, the Board finds that a remand is necessary in order to ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures pursuant to 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04, to include providing the former spouse with a copy of the content of the February 2019 substantive appeal and a Board certification letter. The record reflects that the former spouse submitted an August 2015 VA Form 21-0788, which included her monthly income and expenses. The Veteran has not submitted a VA Form 21-0788 to report 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 the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04. Specifically, ensure that the former spouse is provided with the content of the Veteran’s February 2019 substantive appeal and a Board certification letter. 2. Inform the former 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 both parties provide updated income and expense information, to include any support provided to the former spouse by the Veteran. 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.