Citation Nr: 20071900 Decision Date: 11/06/20 Archive Date: 11/06/20 DOCKET NO. 11-26 174 DATE: November 6, 2020 REMANDED Whether the Veteran was properly compensated for dependent spouse, M.B., is remanded. (The issue of entitlement to a compensable rating for post-surgical scars of the left knee, entitlement to a rating in excess of 70 percent for major depressive disorder, and entitlement to service connection for hypertension and diabetes mellitus will be addressed by the Board in a separate appellate document) REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from September 1978 to December 1978. During the development of this appeal, the Veteran requested hearings before both a Decision Review Officer (DRO) and a Veterans Law Judge (VLJ). The Veteran elected to have an informal conference instead of a DRO hearing in May 2011. The Veteran testified before the undersigned VLJ at a hearing at his local Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) in November 2017. The Board remanded the appeal in May 2018. The Veteran contends he was not properly paid dependency benefits for M.B., his deceased spouse. The Veteran was married to M.B. from October 1986 until her death in November 1998. The Veteran notified VA of his marriage to M.B. in February 1988. In May 2018, the Board remanded the claim for an audit of payment of compensation benefits to the Veteran from October 1986 to November 1998. Pursuant to the Board’s remand, in the June 2019 dependency audit for dependent spouse for the period from October 1986 to November 1998, the RO summarized the procedural documents that were already of record regarding dependency benefits for M.B., as shown below: 1. March 1, 1988, received copy of marriage license showing Veteran married M.B., date of marriage October [REDACTED], 1986. 2. March 15, 1988, letter sent to Veteran requesting certified copy of marriage certificate or original. 3. July 25, 1988, Veteran awarded temporary 100% benefit for the period September 1, 1987 to December 1, 1987. Award included additional benefits for spouse and child. 4. December 31, 1991, notification letter sent to Veteran granting an extension to his temporary 100% evaluation initially started on September 1, 1987 and extending to February 1, 1988, then reducing his award to 30% effective February1, 1988. Award also extended additional dependency benefits for spouse and child originally granted on July 25, 1988 award. 5. March 5, 1992, notification letter sent to Veteran shows monthly compensation rates from December 1, 1987, to April 1, 1992, with projected amounts based upon removal of dependent children upon reaching age 18. Letter states the compensation rates include additional benefits for Veteran’s spouse and children. Review of pay tables shows the Veteran was being compensated at the correct amount for a spouse and two children. 6. March 26, 1992, VA 21-8947, Compensation and Pension Award printout shows compensation benefits from December 1, 1987, to January 1, 1992. Review of pay tables shows the Veteran service-connected at 30% and being compensated at the correct amount based on spouse and two children. 7. November 17, 1997, VA 21-8947, Compensation and Pension Award printout shows compensation benefits on August 1, 1997. Veteran’s combined service connected rating at 40%. Review of pay tables shows he was being compensated at the correct amount based on spouse and two children. 8. December 14, 1998, VA Form 119 documents a telephone call from the Veteran to notify VA that his spouse had passed away on November [REDACTED], 1998 from complications due to metastatic breast cancer and to please remove her from his compensation award. The RO concluded that review of the documents contained in the Veteran’s file reflected that the Veteran received the correct compensation with additional dependency benefits for his spouse and children from the date he was initially granted a temporary 100 percent evaluation on September 1, 1987, until his spouse passed away on November [REDACTED], 1998. The Board notes that the July 1988 VA 21-8947 Compensation and Pension Award document reflects that M.B. was added as a spouse and in the July 1988 notification letter, the Veteran was informed that the Veteran was in receipt of additional benefits for his spouse and child. A March 1992 VA letter also indicated that his compensation payments included additional payment for his spouse and child. The above-mentioned notification letters and the June 2019 audit report do not include the compensation amounts that the Veteran received for his dependent spouse, M.B., nor do they reflect the effective date that the Veteran’s spouse, M.B., was added as a dependent. As previously noted by the Board, no spouse was listed on the VA compensation and pension award letters issued in December 1991, March 1992, and June 1992, although M.B. does appear as a dependent on several other award letters. Although the June 2019 audit report indicated that a review of pay tables showed the Veteran was being compensated at the correct amount for a spouse and two children, the pay tables were not provided, so the Board is unable to discern whether the Veteran was properly compensated for his spouse, M.B. Thus, as the June 2019 audit merely reiterated the procedural documents of record and does not provide the necessary information to resolve the claim, a remand is necessary to address the above deficiencies. (Continued on the next page)   The matter is REMANDED for the following action: In light of the conflicting and insufficient documentation of record, as outlined above, the agency of original jurisdiction should prepare a complete audit of payment of compensation benefits to the Veteran for period from October 1986 to November 1998, to include providing the effective date that M.B. was added as a dependent spouse. This audit should reflect, on a month-by-month basis, the amounts of compensation actually paid to the Veteran with a full explanation of the calculations made to arrive at the amounts in question, to particularly include the additional dependency benefits paid for M.B. A copy of the written audit should be associated with the claims file and also provided to the Veteran and his representative. A. ISHIZAWAR Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Sarah Campbell, 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.