Citation Nr: 20043725 Decision Date: 06/29/20 Archive Date: 06/29/20 DOCKET NO. 14-13 470 DATE: June 29, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) benefits based upon the need for aid and attendance and/or housebound is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty with the United States Army from March 1982 to June 1990. For his meritorious service, the Veteran was awarded (among other decorations) the Army Commendation Medal and the Army Achievement Medal. These issues come before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a March 2016 rating decision. In January 2020, the Board remanded the claims for further development. 1. Entitlement to service connection for a back disorder is remanded. 2. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based upon the need for aid and attendance and/or housebound benefits is remanded. A brief review of the procedural history of these claims illustrates why a remand is required. In March 2011, the Veteran first appointed J.M., a claims agent from a disability firm in Connecticut, as his representative before VA. In April 2013, the Veteran changed his representation from J.M. to R.F., an agent at the same firm. In March 2019, the Veteran appointed Nicole Knoll – again at the same firm – as his representative. The RO initially accepted this appointment. A July 2019 development letter sent to the Veteran was also provided to Ms. Knoll. In September 2019, the RO issued a supplemental statement of the case as to other issues; this SSOC listed Ms. Knoll as the Veteran’s representative, the RO provided a copy of the SSOC to her as the Veteran’s representative. In November 2019, the RO informed Ms. Knoll and the Veteran that she had filed an outdated form designating her as the Veteran’s representative. This letter noted that VA could not acknowledge her representation of the Veteran. In January 2020, the Board acknowledged this letter, but explicitly found that “Ms. Knoll is the Veteran’s valid representative.” Nevertheless, in February 2020, the RO sent the Veteran a letter noting that VA was unable to acknowledge Ms. Knoll as the Veteran’s representative. The RO provided an updated VA form 21-22a to the Veteran; the Veteran did not respond to this letter, and Ms. Knoll has never submitted an updated power of attorney form. The RO issued a SSOC on these matters in March 2020; Ms. Knoll was not listed as the Veteran’s representative, and the RO did not copy her when sending this SSOC to the Veteran. The Board’s determination in January 2020 that the Veteran’s designation of Ms. Knoll as his representative is valid is a favorable finding. The Board finds no reason to disturb that earlier finding. Thus, the Board has included Ms. Knoll as the Veteran’s representative on this remand. This creates an issue, however, as she was not provided a copy of the March 2020 SSOC, nor was she notified that the case had been recertified to the Board. The Board thus will remand this case in order that the RO may reissue the SSOC to the Veteran and to his valid representative. Now, all that being said, both the Veteran and his representative should be on notice that the RO is concerned about the documents designating Ms. Knoll as his representative. The Board’s decision herein should resolve this matter, but if the Veteran and Ms. Knoll wish to continue their representation, it might be wise to submit updated documents. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: Reissue the March 2020 supplemental statement of the case, providing a copy both to the Veteran and to 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.