Citation Nr: 20033083 Decision Date: 05/12/20 Archive Date: 05/12/20 DOCKET NO. 19-22 777 DATE: May 12, 2020 ORDER Entitlement to recognition of J.L. as the Veteran's spouse for the purpose of additional dependency compensation is denied. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. Prior to the Veteran’s marriage to J.L., she was married to G.A. 2. There is insufficient evidence of record to determine that the Veteran’s marriage to G.A. is void. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for recognition of J.L. as the Veteran's spouse for the purpose of additional dependency compensation have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 103, 1115; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(j), 3.204, 3.205, 3.207. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served honorably on active duty in the United States Army from July 1996 to April 1999. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a November 2018 determination of a Regional Office of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). Legal Standard Any veteran who is entitled to disability compensation, and whose disability is rated not less than 30 percent, is entitled to additional compensation for dependents, including for a spouse. See 38 U.S.C. § 1115; 38 C.F.R. § 3.4(b)(2). The Veteran’s service-connected disabilities have been rated at least at 30 percent disabling for the entire appellate period. Under 38 U.S.C. § 5101(a), a specific claim must be filed in order for benefits to be paid or furnished to any individual under the laws administered by VA. See also 38 C.F.R. § 3.151(a). The Secretary has authority to prescribe the nature and extent of the proof required in order to establish a right to VA benefits. See 38 U.S.C. § 501. If a claimant’s application for a benefit under the laws administered by the Secretary is incomplete, the Secretary shall notify the claimant and the claimant’s representative, if any, of the information necessary to complete the application. 38 U.S.C. § 5102(b). Except as otherwise provided by law, a claimant has the responsibility to present and support a claim for benefits under laws administered by the Secretary. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(a). VA will generally accept, for purposes of determining entitlement to benefits under laws administered by VA, the statement of a claimant as proof of marriage, dissolution of a marriage, birth of a child, or death of a dependent, provided that the statement contains: the date (month and year) and place of the event; the full name and relationship of the other person to the claimant; and the social security number of the other person. 38 U.S.C. § 5124; 38 C.F.R. § 3.204. However, when there are questions as to the validity of a marriage, VA shall require the types of evidence indicated in 38 §§ 3.205 through 3.211. 38 C.F.R. § 3.204(b). The types of proof of marriage accepted by VA are listed at 38 C.F.R. § 3.205(a). In the absence of conflicting information, proof of marriage meeting those requirements along with a certified statement of a claimant regarding the date, place, and circumstances of dissolution of any prior marriage may be accepted as establishing a valid marriage, provided that such facts, if they were to be corroborated b record evidence, would warrant acceptance of the marriage as valid. Where, as here, it is contended that a marriage is void, VA requires proof in the manner of a “certified statement from the claimant setting forth the circumstances which rendered the marriage void, together with such other evidence as may be required for a determination.” 38 C.F.R. § 3.207(a). Analysis Here, there is no doubt that the Veteran entered into a ceremonial marriage with J.L. in the State of Arizona in April 2010. The only question before the Board is whether that marriage is valid for VA’s purposes such that additional dependency compensation is warranted. While she has offered slightly different dates regarding the ceremony, the Veteran acknowledges that she previously was married to G.A. in Las Vegas, Nevada in mid-2001. The Veteran argues that that marriage is not disqualifying notwithstanding the fact that no formal divorce has been completed between her and G.A. because G.A. had in fact been already married at the time of their wedding in 2001. In October 2010, she stated that she had gone before a judge in Texas who had declared that marriage not legal and was instead void, but she explained that she did not receive any paperwork to that effect from the court. The Veteran submitted a subsequent statement in August 2015 in which she expressed her frustration with VA’s refusal to recognize her marriage to J.L. considering all other federal agencies have recognized that union. She also submitted a statement from her son in September 2017 who mirrored the Veteran’s earlier statements. He stated that the Veteran and G.A. had been married in August 2001, but that it turned out after a few months that G.A. was actually still married to his first wife at the time of the Veteran and G.A.’s marriage. At that time, the Veteran stated that she was not aware of the name of the woman to whom G.A. was legally married when G.A. and the Veteran were wed. In her December 2018 notice of disagreement, the Veteran again reiterated that G.A.’s status as a married individual when he and she married in 2001 nullified the validity of the marriage between G.A. and the Veteran. She argued that the State of Arizona now legally recognizes her as J.A.’s spouse. Later, in October 2019, the Veteran submitted a detailed affidavit of her attempts to corroborate the validity of her current marriage and the invalidity of her marriage to G.A. She explained that she had contacted various courts in Texas, Arizona, and Nevada, employees of which had confirmed to her that had G.A. been married to any other person at the time of the filing of her marriage to G.A., that that marriage would not be valid. However, she acknowledged that she did not receive any written statement from a court declaring her marriage to G.A. to be void. In the representative brief from February 2020, it was argued that due to time and cost constraints, the Veteran was unable to get a declaration from court declaring that marriage to be void. After reviewing this evidence, the Board cannot find that it is sufficient pursuant to 38 C.F.R. § 3.207(a) to render the Veteran’s marriage to G.A. void. Here, the marriage that the Veteran seeks VA to recognize was entered into in the State of Arizona. It is well-settled under Arizona law that “where two individuals enter into a marriage, and where one of them, or both, has a spouse then living and from whom no divorce has been obtained, then the subsequent marriage is void, a nullity.” Depper v. Depper, 451 P.2d 325, 327 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1969). Here, the Veteran argues that this principle of law renders her marriage to G.A. void. However, the Board finds that it in fact renders her marriage to J.L. void under Arizona law. (Continued on the next page)   As explained above, the Veteran acknowledges that she and G.A. were married in Las Vegas, Nevada in 2001. While she has provided an affidavit explaining that G.A. was already married at that time, she did not provide any further information regarding the nature of G.A.’s marriage that she contends existed. Nowhere in the claims file is any report of that spouse’s name or the date which that marriage was alleged to have occurred. While the Veteran’s son did provide a similar statement, it similarly lacks any more details regarding that alleged marriage other than the fact that G.A. was already married in 2001. In essence, then, the record contains only lay statements from the Veteran and her son that G.A. was married, with no further information. The Board cannot find that this sufficient “other evidence as may be required” for a determination that G.A. was married in 2001 and therefore that his marriage to the Veteran was void. See Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 122.020; 38 C.F.R. § 3.207(a). VA is therefore left with no information with which to verify the Veteran’s contention that G.A. indeed had been married at the time of his 2001 marriage to the Veteran. Where, as here, there is simply insufficient information regarding the circumstances of the marriage that is alleged to render the Veteran’s marriage to be void under 38 C.F.R. § 3.207(a), the Board cannot find that the criteria to recognize the Veteran’s marriage to J.L. as valid for the purpose of additional dependency compensation have been met. The claim must therefore be denied. M. Tenner Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board B. Whitelaw, 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.