Citation Nr: 20036768
Decision Date: 05/28/20	Archive Date: 05/28/20

DOCKET NO. 17-28 286
DATE: May 28, 2020

REMANDED

Entitlement to an increase in the amount of the apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant is remanded.

REASONS FOR REMAND

The Veteran served on active duty from November 1967 to August 1971.  The appellant is the Veteran’s estranged spouse.  

This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2015 decision by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO).

This matter was previously remanded by the Board in February 2019 for further development.  Unfortunately, a review of the record indicates that there has not been substantial compliance with the previous remand directives and further development is necessary.  See Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268, 271 (1998).

Entitlement to an increase in the amount of the apportionment of the Veteran's VA compensation benefits.

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 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.

 As noted in the Board’s prior remand, the Veteran has not been provided a copy of the contents of the March 2017 SOC or the appellant’s May 2017 substantive appeal.  While the Board requested the RO send the Veteran these documents, to date they have not been provided to him.  On remand, the RO should provide the Veteran with a copy of the March 2017 SOC and the contents of the May 2017 VA Form 9.  

Further, the Board notes that in February 2020, the Veteran referred to the appellant as his ex-wife, however, no final divorce decree is of record.  The parties are asked to update VA with the status of their divorce proceedings.  Additionally, although the appellant updated her financial information, the Veteran has only supplied limited income information.  On remand he should again be asked to complete updated income and expense information.

The matters are REMANDED for the following action:

1. Ensure full compliance with contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04.  Specifically, ensure that the Veteran is provided a copy of the March 2017 SOC and the content of the appellant’s May 2017 substantive appeal.  

2. Ask the Veteran to submit updated financial information.  Further, ask the parties to update VA upon the finalization of their divorce proceedings.

3. Readjudicate the claim on appeal.

 

 

MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE

Veterans Law Judge

Board of Veterans’ Appeals

Attorney for the Board	J. Uller

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.