Citation Nr: 20007953 Decision Date: 01/30/20 Archive Date: 01/30/20 DOCKET NO. 11-18 444 DATE: January 30, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the child D.B., is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1989 to January 1998. The appellant seeks benefits as the mother of the Veteran’s child, D. B. The Board notes that the child reached the age of 18 in May 2018. However, an apportionment of the Veteran’s benefits may be warranted prior to that time. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 2008 special apportionment decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in Cleveland, Ohio. In an October 2009 decision, the RO continued the denial of the appellant’s claim for apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability compensation benefits on behalf of his minor child. In April 2017, the Veteran appeared at a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. The appellant did not appear at the April 2017 Travel Board hearing. In August 2017, the Board remanded the appeal to provide the appellant with a Travel Board hearing. The Board also instructed the RO to provide the Veteran with a copy of the appellant’s substantive appeal, which was completed in March 2018. In October 2019, the Veteran testified at a Travel Board hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. The appellant did not appear at the October 2019 Travel Board hearing. For the reasons discussed below, the Board finds that VA has not fulfilled its obligations under the procedures relating to contested claims and, thus, this claim must be remanded. A claim for an apportionment is a “contested claim” and is subject to special procedural regulations. 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100, 19.101, 19.102; see also 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.500-20.504; 20.713. Under the applicable criteria, all interested parties will be specifically notified of the action taken by the agency of original jurisdiction in a simultaneously contested claim and of the right and time limit for initiating an appeal, as well as hearing and representation rights. 38 C.F.R. § 19.100. If a hearing is scheduled for any party to a simultaneously contested claim, the other contesting claimants and their representatives, if any, will be notified and afforded an opportunity to be present. The appellant will be allowed to present opening testimony and argument. Thereafter, any other contesting party who wishes to do so may present testimony and argument. The appellant will then be allowed an opportunity to present testimony and argument in rebuttal. Cross-examination is not permitted. 38 C.F.R. § 20.713. A close review of the claims file reveals that VA has not fulfilled its obligations under the procedures relating to contested claims. Specifically, the hearing notice that was mailed to the appellant on August 26, 2019, was returned as undeliverable on September 9, 2019. This notice was mailed to an address on Minota Avenue in Akron, Ohio; however, in May 2018, the appellant spoke with RO personnel and confirmed that her address was on Laffer Avenue. There is no evidence indicating that the appellant contacted VA after this point to change her address. Therefore, it appears that the hearing notice was sent to the incorrect address. To ensure compliance with all specialized contested claim procedures, this deficiency must be corrected on remand. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Review the claims file and ensure that all contested claim procedures have been followed, to include all necessary notice to both parties. 2. In addition, the RO should provide the appellant with a copy of the October 2019 Board hearing transcript. The RO should allow the appellant an opportunity to respond and/or request her own hearing on this matter. JOHN Z. JONES 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.