Citation Nr: 20046785 Decision Date: 07/13/20 Archive Date: 07/13/20 DOCKET NO. 04-36 512 DATE: July 13, 2020 ORDER 1. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for housebound status and/or aid and attendance is dismissed. 2. Entitlement to SMC for the Veteran’s spouse based on the need for aid and attendance is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In January 2015, the Veteran filed timely notice of disagreement (NOD) with a July 2014 rating decision denying his claims for special monthly compensation (SMC) for aid and attendance/housebound status and for SMC for spousal aid and attendance. Per a November 2017 Board remand directive, a statement of the case was sent to the appellant in April 2019. A substantive appeal was not received. CONCLUSION OF LAW A substantive appeal was not received for the claims of entitlement to special SMC for aid and attendance/housebound status and for aid and attendance for the Veteran’s spouse; and the Board does not have jurisdiction to review the claims. 38 U.S.C. §§ 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.202, 20.300, 20.302. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty in the U.S. Army from June 1965 to April 1967. He died in February 2017. The Veteran’s widow is the substituted appellant. In relevant part, in a July 2014 rating decision, the AOJ denied the Veteran’s claims for SMC for aid and attendance/housebound status and for SMC for spousal aid and attendance. In February 2016 and again in November 2017, the Board remanded the claims and directed the issuance of a SOC, in compliance with Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). An SOC was issued to the appellant in April 2019. The file has been returned to the Board for review. However, as discussed below, there are no issues in controversy for the Board to resolve and no claims are ripe for appellate review. Dismissals The Board has the authority to determine whether it has jurisdiction to review a case and may dismiss any case over which it does not have jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.204 (2019), formerly 38 C.F.R. § 20.101 (2018).  Appellate review is initiated by filing a timely NOD in writing, and after an SOC has been furnished, is completed by filing a timely substantive appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.200, 20.201, 20.202 (2018). A claimant or his/her representative must file a NOD with a determination of the RO within one year from the date that the RO mailed notice of the determination. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302(a) (2018). A substantive appeal consists of a properly completed VA Form 9, “Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals,” or correspondence containing the necessary information. 38 C.F.R. § 20.202. A substantive appeal must be filed within 60 days from the date when the AOJ mails the SOC to the claimant, or within the remainder of the one-year period from the date of mailing of the notification of the determination being appealed, whichever comes later. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b)(1) (2018). 1. Entitlement to special monthly compensation (SMC) based on the need for housebound status and/or aid and attendance 2. Entitlement to SMC for the Veteran’s spouse based on the need for aid and attendance As noted, the AOJ’s July 2015 rating decision denied his claims for special monthly compensation (SMC) for aid and attendance/housebound status and for SMC for spousal aid and attendance. The AOJ also continued to deny the SMC claim for aid and attendance. The Veteran filed a timely NOD on the SMC claims in January 2015. Initially, in February 2016, the Board remanded the SMC issues to the AOJ for issuance of a Statement of the Case to the Veteran and to subsequently give the Veteran an opportunity to perfect the appeal of these claims to the Board. See Manlincon v. West, 12 Vet. App. 238 (1999). During the intervening period, unfortunately, the Veteran died in February 2017. Then, the Board again remanded the matters in November 2017 to the AOJ issuance of a Statement of the Case on the SMC issues per Manlincon and to ensure compliance with the prior Board remand directive. A remand by the Board confers on a Veteran the right to substantial compliance with the remand orders. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998); D’Aries v. Peake, 22 Vet. App. 97 (2008). The Board also directed that the claims not be returned to the Board if a timely substantive appeal had not been filed. In April 2019, the AOJ mailed to the appellant a SOC addressing the SMC claims. The SOC was issued with a notice letter and enclosed a copy of a blank Appeal to the Board (VA Form 9). In the notice letter the Veteran was told: “You must file your appeal with this office within 60 days from the date of this letter or within the remainder, if any, of the one-year period from the date of the letter notifying you of the action that you have appealed. If we do not hear from you within this period, we will close your case. If you need more time to file your appeal, you should request more time before the time limit for filing your appeal expires.” The April 2019 SOC was addressed to the Veteran’s latest mailing address of record, and there is no indication that the notice was returned as undeliverable. 38 C.F.R. § 20.302 (b)(1). A copy was also sent to her attorney. In fact, in February 2020 correspondence, the appellant’s attorney acknowledged that the Board’s remand instruction was completed with the issuance of the April 2019 SOC regarding SMC for aid and attendance and spousal aid and attendance. The appellant and her attorney did not submit a substantive appeal (VA Form 9) within 60 days of the April 2019 SOC or within one year of the notification of the July 2014 rating decision. In fact, there is no indication that the appellant and her attorney has filed any substantive appeal, VA Form 9, with regard to the April 2019 SOC. Thus, matters have not been properly perfected for appellate review and are not within the Board’s jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3). Accordingly, the matters are dismissed. C. CRAWFORD Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board Biswajit Chatterjee, 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.