Citation Nr: 21005140 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 16-55 552 DATE: January 29, 2021 REMANDED The issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the children J.A., D.A., A.A., and A.A., is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1996 to January 2009. The appellant is the Veteran’s spouse and mother of their children. [In this regard, the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) notes that although the Veteran initially reports that he and the appellant have divorced, he later states that they are still married. Indeed, there is no divorce decree of record at this time.] Also, J.A. and D.A. have reached the age of 18 during the pendency of this appeal. However, the matter of an increased apportionment for J.A. and D.A. remains at issue for the portion of the appeal period prior to their 18th birthdays. This current matter comes before the Board on appeal from an October 2014 decision in which a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO) granted an apportionment of the Veteran’s VA disability benefits to the appellant, in the amount of $403.00 per month, effective February 1, 2013. The appellant appealed the amount of the apportionment. The Veteran did not appeal. In December 2015, the Board remanded the appeal for the issuance of a statement of the case (SOC). In January 2019, the Veteran revoked representation by the California Department of Veterans Service. See 38 C.F.R. §14.631(f)(1). He is currently unrepresented. In January 2020, the appellant and her daughters testified at a hearing before the undersigned Veterans Law Judge. A transcript is included in the claims file. The Veteran failed to appear for the hearing. In March 2020, the Board remanded this appeal for compliance with the contested claims procedures. 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 increased apportionment of the Veteran’s VA compensation benefits to the appellant, on behalf of the children J.A., D.A., A.A., and A.A. In March 2020, the Board remanded the appellants claim for compliance with the contested claims procedures. Copies of the December 2015 Board remand, the September 2016 SOC, the content of the appellant’s November 2016 substantive appeal, and the January 2020 Board hearing transcript were to be sent to the appellant. On September 16, 2020, the RO attempted to send copies of the necessary documents to the Veteran. However, these copies were returned to VA on November 12, 2020. It appears that the address on record for the Veteran is the Clark County Detention Center. On November 10, 2020, the Board received notice that the Veteran was sentenced to 30 days confinement but was released on September [REDACTED], 2020. On remand, the RO should obtain, if possible, the Veteran’s current address and attempt to mail copies of the December 2015 Board remand, the September 2016 SOC, the content of the appellant’s November 2016 substantive appeal, and the January 2020 Board hearing transcript to him, in compliance with the March 2020 remand directives. Accordingly, this matter is REMANDED for the following action: 1. Attempt to obtain the Veteran’s address from all available sources, including by contacting the appellant and her representative, Disabled American Veterans, for any information regarding the Veteran’s whereabouts they may have. 2. After the Veteran’s address has been obtained, the RO should ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38C.F.R. §§19.100-02, 20.500-04. Specifically, ensure that the Veteran is provided with copies of the December 2015 Board remand, the September 2016 SOC, the content of the appellant’s November 2016 substantive appeal, and the January 2020 Board hearing transcript. THERESA M. CATINO Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans’ Appeals Attorney for the Board J. Uller, Associate 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.