Citation Nr: 20026029 Decision Date: 04/15/20 Archive Date: 04/15/20 DOCKET NO. 18-11 221 DATE: April 15, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits is denied. FINDING OF FACT The appellant did not serve 90 days or more during a period of war, was not discharged from service due to a service-connected disability after serving during a period of war, did not serve for a period of 90 consecutive days that began or ended during a period of war, and did not serve for an aggregate of 90 days or more in two or more separate periods of service during more than one period of war. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1501, 1521; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.2, 3.3, 3.314. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant served on active duty with the United States Army from March 28, 1972 to May 18, 1972. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of an August 2017 decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) that denied the appellant’s claim of entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits. 1. Entitlement to nonservice-connected pension benefits The appellant asserts that he is entitled to nonservice-connected pension benefits. To establish eligibility for pension benefits, the evidence must show, among other things, that the Veteran has the requisite active wartime service. 38 U.S.C. § 1521(a); 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.3, 3.314(b). A veteran meets the active wartime service requirement for pension benefits if the veteran served for 90 days or more during a period of war; if the veteran served during a period of war and was discharged from service due to a service-connected disability; if the veteran served for a period of 90 consecutive days which began or ended during a period of war; or if the veteran served for an aggregate of 90 days or more in two or more separate periods of service during more than one period of war. See 38 U.S.C. § 1521(j); 38 C.F.R. § 3.3(a)(2). The term “period of war” for pension purposes includes, among other periods, the Vietnam era. 38 U.S.C. § 1501; 38 C.F.R. § 3.2. The Vietnam era is the period beginning on February 28, 1961 and ending on May 7, 1975, inclusive, in the case of a veteran who actually served in the Republic of Vietnam during that period. 38 C.F.R. § 3.2. The period beginning August 5, 1964 and ending on May 7, 1975, inclusive, is the established period of war in all other cases. Id. Based upon the evidence of record, the Board concludes that although the appellant served during the Vietnam era, he lacks the requisite service for pension benefits. First, the evidence shows that the appellant did not serve for 90 days or more during a period of war, for a period of 90 days that began or ended during a period of war, or for an aggregate of 90 days or more in two or more separate periods of service during more than one period of war. Specifically, his DD-214 shows that he served on active duty during the Vietnam era from March 28, 1972 to May 18, 1972. Thus, he had only 51 days of active service, which is not sufficient wartime service to establish eligibility for pension benefits. Next, given that the appellant had less than 90 days of active service, he can only establish eligibility for pension benefits if the evidence shows that he was discharged or released from service due to a service-connected disability. Here, the evidence does not show that he was discharged or released from service due to a service-connected disability. Thus, the evidence does not show eligibility for pension benefits due to a service-connected disability. Thus, the appellant’s pension claim must be denied as a matter of law because he did not have the requisite length of service to qualify him for this benefit. See Sabonis v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 426, 430 (1994). The appellant’s letters to VA are clear that, rather than seeking pension benefits, the appellant believes he is entitled to benefits based on a surgical procedure performed at a VA facility. His claims file reflects that such a claim has been considered an and denied. If the appellant wishes to revisit that issue, he is encouraged to contact his representative. Evan M. Deichert Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Henriquez, 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.