Citation Nr: 20060704 Decision Date: 09/15/20 Archive Date: 09/15/20 DOCKET NO. 18-50 668 DATE: September 15, 2020 REMANDED Entitlement to recognition as the surviving child of a deceased veteran for the purposes of dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC) is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND This case comes to the Board from an August 2018 letter decision of the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ), which denied the appellant’s claim for dependency and indemnity compensation (DIC). The appellant suggests that he is eligible for this benefit because of his father’s status as a deceased veteran and his own status as the child of a veteran who became permanently incapable of self-support before he reached 18 years of age. In a statement of the case (SOC), dated October 2018, the AOJ explained that it denied the appellant’s claim because no records could be located confirming his father’s alleged service in the Air Force. In July 2020, the appellant testified before the undersigned at a virtual hearing. A transcript of that hearing is of record. VA has a duty to assist claimants in obtaining evidence necessary to substantiate their claims. 38 C.F.R. § 3.159(c). Based on information obtained from the appellant, the AOJ made a request using the Personnel Information Exchange System (PIES), using request code 050. This request code is normally appropriate for requesting the National Personnel Records Center (NPRC) to provide complete copies of a person’s service treatment records and personnel file. In February 2018, the NPRC’s responded to the request concerning the appellant’s father as follows: “Cannot identify a record based on the information furnished.” The appellant has submitted a letter, dated November 2018, which he apparently received from the NPRC in response to a separate request for his father’s service records. The letter indicates that, if his father’s records were located at the NPRC in July 1973, they likely would have been in an area of that repository most heavily damaged in a fire and may have been destroyed. The letter suggests that the result of the unsuccessful February 2018 PIES request might be explained by the destruction of the relevant records during the 1973 fire a the NPRC. Under these circumstances, further efforts to verify the appellant’s father’s service are reasonable. These efforts should include a new PIES request using code S02 (for verifying all periods of service and to help reconstruct a record that could not be located), The Board will remand this claim with instructions to the AOJ to undertake these efforts to verify the service of the appellant’s father. But before the AOJ proceeds with any of the requests which could potentially verify that service, the appellant should be asked to confirm and clarify the identifying information about his father which he previously submitted. This information includes certain discrepancies which may have contributed to the NPRC’s failure to verify his father’s relevant service. One version of his father’s death certificate indicates a social security number ending in the number 7. All of the other documents submitted by the appellant indicate that his father’s social security number ended in 9. The documents also include different spellings of his father’s name. The appellant’s initial application for benefits, his birth certificate, and his father’s death certificate spell the appellant’s father’s name differently than do the appellant’s substantive appeal (VA Form 9) and the letter sent to the appellant by the NPRC in November 2018. The spellings used in the NPRC letter and the Form 9 are different from one another. The record also includes a written statement from a relative of the appellant, who uses still another spelling for the name of the appellant’s father. To clarify this matter, the AOJ should write to the appellant and ask him to clarify the correct identifying information for his father. The AOJ should also ask the appellant to confirm the correctness of the dates of service he previously provided – i.e., service in the Air Force between August 1954 and August 1956. According to the appellant’s application forms and his father’s death certificate, his father was born in December 1898. This means he must have been 55 years old in August 1954, which is an unusually advanced age for someone joining the Air Force for the first time. The AOJ should ask the appellant to try to confirm whether the previous dates of service he provided are accurate. Finally, during the hearing in this case, the appellant indicated he receives disability benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA). It appears that the AOJ confirmed that SSA has determined that the appellant has been disabled since May 1978. But it is unclear whether the AOJ has requested copies of any medical records which the SSA may have relied on to make this decision. Nor is it clear whether the AOJ requested copies of SSA’s relevant claims processing and decision documents. Both forms of information could potentially assist the appellant in demonstrating that he became permanently incapable of self-support before turning 18 years of age. On remand, the AOJ should send an appropriate records request to SSA. The matters are REMANDED for the following action: 1. Write to the appellant and his representative and ask them to clarify certain inconsistencies concerning his father’s identifying information which may have frustrated previous attempts to verify the appellant’s father’s service – particularly the correct spelling of the appellant’s father’s first and last name, his social security number, and his dates of service. Advise the appellant that one version of his father’s death certificate indicates a social security number ending in a 7 while the appellant has indicated that the correct social security number ends in 9. The appellant’s initial application for benefits, his birth certificate, and his father’s death certificate spell the appellant’s father’s name differently than do the appellant’s substantive appeal (VA Form 9) and the letter sent to the appellant by the NPRC in November 2018. The spellings used in the NPRC letter and the Form 9 are different from one another. The record also includes a written statement from a relative of the appellant, who uses still another spelling for the name of the appellant’s father. Please also ask the appellant to identify the spelling of his father’s first and last name which he used during his active duty service. Please also ask the appellant to confirm the dates when he believes his father performed active duty service. He should be advised that according to his application for benefits his father was born in December 1898 and, in his hearing testimony, he indicated that his father served in the Air Force between August 1954 and August 1956. If these dates are correct, then his father was 55 years old when he joined the Air Force, which is an unusually advanced age for someone joining the Air Force for the first time. Is it possible that his father actually performed active duty service before August 1954? In its letter to the appellant, the AOJ should advise him to do everything he can to help clarify his father’s identifying information and dates of service. If he is unsure which spelling of his name his father used during his life, please ask him to say so. If he can at least eliminate some of the potential misspellings of his father’s name provided previously, please advise him that he should do so. 2. The AOJ should send a request to SSA for all of the appellant’s records – not only medical records, but also all other SSA records, including but not limited to copies of the appellant’s application to the SSA and the SSA decision. The text of the AOJ’s request to the SSA, and any necessary follow-up requests, should make clear that the records requested include not only medical records, but also all other SSA records, including but not limited to copies of the appellant’s application to the SSA and the SSA decision. 3. After waiting a reasonable period for the appellant and his representative to respond to the letter required by part one of these instructions, the AOJ should make further efforts to verify the service of the appellant’s father. These efforts should include a separate PIES request using code S02 (for verifying all periods of service and to help in reconstructing a record that could not be located 4. The AOJ should consider the need for any further   development necessary to decide the appellant’s claim for dependency and indemnity compensation. DAVID L. WIGHT Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Nye, 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.