Citation Nr: 21000307 Decision Date: 01/05/21 Archive Date: 01/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-19 871 DATE: January 5, 2021 ORDER The appeal for entitlement to a compensable evaluation for cutaneous papular disorder, uncertain etiology, is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT In December 2020, the Board received notification from the Social Security Administration that the appellant had died in November 2020. CONCLUSION OF LAW Due to the death of the appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal at this time. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The appellant had active service from September 1979 to March 1980, from November 1990 to June 1991, and from June 2004 to June 2012. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2015 rating decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The Board notes, that in response to the February 2015 rating decision, the appellant submitted a November 2015 VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, which was accepted as a valid notice of disagreement (NOD) by the Agency of Original Jurisdiction (AOJ). In this regard, effective March 24, 2015, a NOD generally must be submitted on the form prescribed by the Secretary. 38 C.F.R. § 20.201 (a). However, the AOJ accepted the November 2015 VA Form 9 as a valid NOD. Accordingly, as a timely appeal has otherwise been completed, the Board will accept jurisdiction over this issue and address the merits of the claim. See Percy v. Shinseki, 23 Vet. App. 37, 45 (2009) (by treating an issue as in appellate status for an extended period, VA waives any objections it might have had to exercising jurisdiction). Additionally, in a VA Form 9, Appeal to Board of Veterans’ Appeals, received by VA in April 2017, which perfected the appeal regarding the issue herein, the appellant requested a Board hearing, which was not afforded to him prior to his death. The Board also acknowledges that an informal hearing presentation has not been received from the appellant’s representative. However, no further action is required as to these issues, or any other due process deficiency, if such exists, given that this case is being dismissed due to the death of the Veteran. Unfortunately, the appellant died during the pendency of the appeal. In this regard, in December 2020, the Board received a VA Form 27-0820a, Report of First Notice of Death, which reflected that the appellant died in November 2020. Thereafter, a December 2020 response to an inquiry to the Social Security Administration also reflected the appellant died in November 2020. As a matter of law, appellants’ claims do not survive their deaths. Zevalkink v. Brown, 102 F.3d 1236, 1243-44 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Smith v. Brown, 10 Vet. App. 330, 333-34 (1997); Landicho v. Brown, 7 Vet. App. 42, 47 (1994). This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the appellant and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7104(a); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106. The Board’s dismissal of this appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claim to completion. Such request must be filed not later than one year after the date of the appellant’s death. 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). A person eligible for substitution includes “a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title ….” 38 U.S.C. § 5121A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(a). An eligible party seeking substitution in an appeal that has been dismissed by the Board due to the death of the claimant should file a request for substitution with the VA office from which the claim originated. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(b). M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Espinoza, 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.