Citation Nr: 21005157 Decision Date: 01/29/21 Archive Date: 01/29/21 DOCKET NO. 18-02 672 DATE: January 29, 2021 ORDER The claim for payment of additional compensation benefits for the period of the Veteran’s incarceration is denied. FINDING OF FACT The most probative evidence of record shows that the Veteran has received the proper compensation amount for the time in question. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an award of additional compensation benefits for the Veteran during a period of incarceration have not been met. 38 U.S.C. § 5313; 38 C.F.R. § 3.665. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from December 1986 to September 1992. This matter is before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (Board) on appeal of a December 2016 decision of the VA Regional Office (RO), which initially retroactively reduced the Veteran’s benefits due to his incarceration between September 2013 and November 2015. The RO later (in February 2017) reversed this decision, at which time the Veteran indicated that he was seeking compensation owed to him during his incarceration. Additionally, the Veteran originally requested a hearing regarding his claim. However, in June 2019 correspondence, his representative indicated that he was withdrawing his hearing request. Thus, the request is deemed withdrawn and the Board will proceed with adjudication of the claim. The Veteran contends that he did not receive the proper payments from December 2013 to March 2015. At the time of the Veteran’s incarceration, his wife had filed for an apportionment. Subsequent to that filing, a member of the RO staff visited the Veteran at the Oahu Community Correctional Center on November 15, 2013. At that meeting, as memorialized in a November 15, 2013 Report of Contact and as recalled in an October 21, 2020 email communication, the Veteran agreed to have his compensation deposited into an account designated by his wife. In accordance with this directive, the RO updated the Veteran’s direct deposit information. By a letter dated November 18, 2013 the RO notified the Veteran of the change to his direct deposit information. The Board notes that this letter was sent to the Veteran’s residence and not to the Oahu Community Correctional Center. The Board finds that this was the proper place to send the communication as it was the last address of record. The Veteran has previously contended that changing his direct deposit information and not updating his address to the Oahu Community Correctional Center was Clear and Unmistakable Error (CUE) on the part of the RO. However, a December 2017 rating decision determined that there was no CUE and the Veteran did not appeal that decision. Further, in his statements at his RO hearing and in written statements to VA, the Veteran claimed that he did not authorize any change to his direct deposit. The Board does not find this claim credible. In prior statements, the Veteran acknowledged authorizing payments be sent to his wife’s account. Additionally, when contacting a Veterans Justice Outreach Coordinator in December 2013, the Veteran stated that he had authorized payments to his wife. While the Veteran’s statements have shifted, those of the RO employee have remained constant. As such, the Board finds the statements of the RO employee more credible than those of the Veteran regarding the November 2013 meeting. An accounting shows that during the period in question, the entirety of the Veteran’s compensation was deposited into the account indicated by his wife. From December 2013 through December 2014, the Veteran’s award totaled $3,473.33 per month. From January 2015 through March 2015, his award totaled $3,532.39 per month. Payments to the Veteran from December 2013 to December 2014 were $3,473.33 per month and from January 2015 to March 2015 were $3,532.39 per month. As the preponderance of the evidence shows that the proper amount was deposited in the account indicated by the Veteran’s wife, as authorized by the Veteran, the Board finds that the Veteran received the correct amount of compensation. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE 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.