Citation Nr: 20009632 Decision Date: 02/06/20 Archive Date: 02/05/20 DOCKET NO. 16-09 570 DATE: February 6, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to a certificate of eligibility for an automobile and adaptive equipment, or for adaptive equipment only, is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. In a November 2017 rating decision, the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ) granted the Veteran’s claim for automobile and adaptive equipment in the Veteran’s favor. There is no indication in the claims file the Veteran disagrees with this favorable determination. 2. With regard to the issue of entitlement to a certificate of eligibility for an automobile and adaptive equipment, or for adaptive equipment only, there is no longer a controversy regarding the benefit sought on appeal, as the AOJ has already granted the claim. CONCLUSION OF LAW There is no longer an issue of fact or law before the Board pertaining to whether a certificate of eligibility for an automobile and adaptive equipment, or for adaptive equipment only, is warranted. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104, 7105 (2012); 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (2019). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSION The Veteran had active duty service from July 1979 to September 1988 in the U.S. Marine Corps. The automobile and adaptive equipment issue comes to the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from an October 2015 rating decision issued by an AOJ of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). In the October 2015 rating decision on appeal, the AOJ also denied the issues of entitlement to specially adapted housing and entitlement to a special home adaptation grant. In response, the Veteran submitted an October 2015 Notice of Disagreement (NOD) with the denial of these two issues. The AOJ issued a January 2016 Statement of the Case (SOC) that continued to deny the Veteran entitlement to specially adapted housing and entitlement to a special home adaptation grant. However, crucially, when the Veteran continued his appeal in the March 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran specified he only sought to appeal the denial of the separate automobile and adaptive equipment issue. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.202, 20.302(b) (2018). Thus, the Veteran did not perfect his appeal of the specially adapted housing and special home adaptation grant issues he had originally claimed. In fact, in a latter April 2016 SSOC, the AOJ only considered the automobile and adaptive equipment issue to be the only issue remaining on appeal. As relevant to this point, the Federal Circuit has held that if the AOJ addresses multiple claims in a SOC, it is reasonable to expect the veteran to specify the particular claim(s) that he or she seeks to appeal in his or her VA Form 9. Rivera v. Shinseki, 654 F.3d 1377, 1381-82 (Fed. Cir. 2011). In the present case, in the March 2016 VA Form 9, the Veteran has specified that he wished to appeal the denial of the automobile and adaptive equipment issue; but notably, his appeal did not include the specially adapted housing and special home adaptation grant issues. Therefore, the issues of entitlement to specially adapted housing and entitlement to a special home adaptation grant are not on appeal before the Board. The Board acknowledges that the Veteran refiled his Applications in Acquiring Specially Adapted Housing or a Special Home Adaptation Grant (VA Forms 26-4555) in November 2016 and May 2017. The AOJ continued to deny the Veteran’s new applications for specially adapted housing or a special home adaptation grant in latter August 2017 and February 2018 rating decisions. The Board is aware that that effective March 24, 2015, VA amended its regulations to provide that VA will accept an expression of dissatisfaction or disagreement with an adjudicative determination by the AOJ as a NOD, but only if the NOD is submitted on a standard form (a VA Form 21-0958 - NOD). See 79 Fed. Reg. 57660 (Sept. 25, 2014) (now codified at 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.23, 19.24, 20.201(a) (2018). However, a review of the record shows that the Veteran did not submit any subsequent NOD (VA Form 21-0958) or Substantive Appeal (e.g., VA Form 9 or equivalent statement) for these refiled issues. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202, 20.300, 20.302 (2018). Thus, once again, the issues of entitlement to specially adapted housing and entitlement to a special home adaptation grant are not on appeal before the Board. In an October 2015 statement from the Veteran, he revoked his previous power of attorney (on a VA Form 21-22) for the Disabled American Veterans (DAV). He again reaffirmed his desire to revoke this POA in latter April 2017 and November 2017 statements. A power of attorney may be revoked at any time, and an agent or attorney may be discharged at any time. Unless specifically noted otherwise, receipt of a new power of attorney constitutes a revocation of an existing power of attorney. 38 C.F.R. § 14.631(f)(1) (2019). In this case, the Veteran has clearly revoked his power of attorney for DAV. He has not selected another representative. Thus, at this time, he is unrepresented in the present matter before the Board. Finally, during the course of the appeal, the Veteran requested a Travel Board hearing before a Veterans Law Judge. However, he cancelled / withdrew that request in June 2019. Therefore, the Board hearing request is considered withdrawn. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(e) (2019). Dismissal The Secretary shall decide all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision by the Secretary under a law that affects the provision of benefits by the Secretary to the Veterans or the dependents or survivors of veterans. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511(a), 7104. All questions in a matter which under section 511(a) of title 38, United States Code, are subject to decision by the Secretary shall be subject to one review on appeal to the Secretary. Final decisions on such appeals shall be made by the Board. Decisions of the Board shall be based on the entire record in proceedings and upon consideration of all evidence and material of record and applicable provisions of law and regulation. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a). The Board may dismiss any appeal which fails to allege error of fact or law in the determination being appealed. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(5). In the present case, in a November 2017 rating decision, the AOJ granted the Veteran’s claim for automobile and adaptive equipment. See 38 C.F.R. § 3.808. This grant was based on a finding of permanent loss of use of the right foot due to an amputation (anatomical loss of the right foot). See 38 U.S.C. § 1114(k); 38 C.F.R. § 3.350(a). There is no indication in the claims file the Veteran disagrees with this favorable determination. In this regard, this is a full grant of the benefits that had been sought on appeal for automobile and adaptive equipment. In fact, a November 2018 Record of Payment for Automobile or Other Conveyance and Adaptive Equipment (VA Form 24-8618) confirms that a 2016 Dodge Grand Caravan was purchased, converted, and modified with adaptive equipment to meet the specific needs of the Veteran’s disabilities. Additional records were submitted in June 2019 from Performance Mobility discussing the specific adaptive equipment in detail. Thus, the automobile and adaptive equipment claim on appeal to the Board is rendered moot. In other words, there is no longer a question or controversy remaining for this issue. Nor are any exceptions to the mootness doctrine present because the ultimate relief sought on appeal, entitlement to automobile and adaptive equipment, has been accomplished without the need for action by the Board. 38 U.S.C. §§ 511, 7104, 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104 (2019). See also Thomas v. Brown, 9 Vet. App. 269, 270 (1996); Hudgins v. Brown, 8 Vet. App. 365, 367-68 (1995); Bond v. Derwinski, 2 Vet. App. 376, 377 (1992). Accordingly, the Veteran’s appeal for the issue of entitlement to a certificate of   eligibility for an automobile and adaptive equipment, or for adaptive equipment only, is dismissed. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board P.S. Rubin, 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.