Citation Nr: 20081925 Decision Date: 12/31/20 Archive Date: 12/31/20 DOCKET NO. 16-15 193 DATE: December 31, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service from August 1990 to February 1994 and from April 1997 to July 2015, to include active service in Southwest Asia. 1. Entitlement to eligibility for Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits is remanded. The Veteran asserts that his eligible active service entitles his dependent daughter to Post-9/11 GI Education benefits. Specifically, the Veteran asserts that he applied for Post-9/11 benefits in February 2012 and was told to serve an additional thirty six months of service to become eligible for the education benefits. He notes that he was subsequently granted the transfer of benefits, and his dependent daughter received an eligibility confirmation letter in February 2014. The February 2014 eligibility confirmation details the Veteran’s eligible service began August 27, 1990 for a length of 4,538 eligible days of service. The Veteran then asserts that he was notified of an incorrect calculation of his eligible service in October 2015. As a result, an overpayment debt was created and the Veteran’s dependent daughter’s eligibility for education benefits was rescinded. While the Veteran’s initial eligibility letter, notice of disagreement (NOD), overpayment debt demand letters, and VADIR report are uploaded to his electronic claims file, the original letter explaining why the Post-9/11 educational benefits were terminated has not been associated with his file. A number of situations could have subsequently terminated these benefits, and without an explanation of why the education benefits were terminated, other than the Veteran’s assertions regarding the situation, it is impossible for the Board to adjudicate the issue of entitlement to eligibility for said benefits. Indeed, the Board notes that several procedural documents are missing from the claims file including the statement of the case (SOC) and the substantive appeal (form 9). See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238, 240-41 (1999). The Board also notes that the Veteran’s education file was last located at the Buffalo Regional Office in August 2016 but has not been associated with the claims file. As such, on remand, the original notification letter terminating the Veteran’s Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits as well as any missing procedural documents should be associated with his electronic claims file. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. The Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) should either (1) determine that an SOC was issued in response to the Veteran’s May 2016 NOD, document that determination, and place the correct SOC in the electronic claims file, or (2) issue an SOC addressing that appeal and advise the Veteran of the date on which the time allowed for perfecting a timely substantive appeal expires. If the Veteran perfects the appeal by submitting a timely and adequate substantive appeal, then the AOJ should return the appeal to the Board for the purpose of appellate disposition, if the appeal remains denied. 2. Associate the original notification letter terminating the Veteran’s Post-9/11 GI Bill education benefits with the electronic claims file. 3. Associate the Veteran’s military personnel file with the electronic claims file. All attempts to obtain the Veteran’s personnel records should be documented in the claims file. 4. Associate the Veteran’s education file with the electronic claims file. All attempts to obtain the Veteran’s education file should be documented in the claims file. 5. After completing the requested actions, and any additional action deemed warranted, the AOJ should readjudicate the claim on appeal. If the benefit sought on appeal remains denied, the Veteran should be furnished a supplemental statement of the case and given the opportunity to respond thereto. The case should then be returned to the Board for further appellate consideration, if in order. Thomas H. O'Shay Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board N. Peden 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.