Citation Nr: 20007630 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/29/20 DOCKET NO. 09-37 169 DATE: January 30, 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 C.W., is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from January 1994 to May 1994 and from November 2004 to October 2005. The appellant is the Veteran’s former spouse and the mother of their minor child. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from an August 2008 decision of the VA Regional Office (RO) in Nashville, Tennessee. The issue on appeal was previously remanded in November 2012, August 2016 and May 2017, in order to afford the appellant a Board hearing at the RO, as she had requested in her VA Form 9 received in September 2009. The record indicates that both parties were notified, through January 2019 correspondence, of the hearing scheduled for February 27, 2019. However, both parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearing and failed to explain their absence. Therefore, the Board hearing request is considered withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704 (d). The issue of entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the minor child, C.W., 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 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. 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 apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability benefits for their child. The Veteran is the prevailing party, as an apportionment of his benefits 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 content of the appellant’s September 2009 substantive appeal. 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 Veteran with a copy of the content of the September 2009 substantive appeal. The record reflects that the appellant submitted a May 2008 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 Veteran is provided with the content of the appellant’s September 2009 substantive appeal. 2. Request that both parties provide updated income and expense information, to include any support provided to the former spouse by the Veteran for their child. 3. Readjudicate the claim on appeal. M. 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.