Citation Nr: 20021184 Decision Date: 03/24/20 Archive Date: 03/24/20 DOCKET NO. 19-16 412 DATE: March 24, 2020 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the children J.M. and S.M, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran honorably served on active duty from August 1979 to May 1981. The appellant is the mother of the parties’ children. The Board notes that S.M. turned 18 on August [REDACTED], 2015. Thus, the Board will address the issue of entitlement to an apportionment on her behalf prior to her 18th birthday. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) from a November 2017 apportionment decision of the VA Regional Office (RO). The issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the children, J.M. and S.M., 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 children. 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 June 2019 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 the Veteran with a copy of the content of the June 2019 substantive appeal. Additionally, the record indicates that the Veteran was required to pay child support to the appellant for their children. However, the exact amount of these monthly payments, as well as the amount of any arrearage owed to the appellant, is unclear. Thus, on remand, the parties are advised to provide updated child support records, to include any related court orders, payment history documents, or proof of payments made by the Veteran to the appellant. 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 June 2019 substantive appeal. 2. Request that both parties provide any records of child support and arrearage payments made to the appellant by the Veteran, to include any related court orders, payment history documentation, or proof of payments. 3. Readjudicate the claim on appeal. MICHAEL 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.