Citation Nr: 21061875 Decision Date: 10/05/21 Archive Date: 10/05/21 DOCKET NO. 17-30 912 DATE: October 5, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to additional compensation benefits for a dependent child is dismissed. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran did not appeal the Agency of Original Jurisdiction's (AOJ's) February 2016 decision to terminate additional compensation benefits for a dependent child based on the concurrent receipt of Chapter 35 Dependent Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits. CONCLUSION OF LAW The Board does not have jurisdiction to review the issue of entitlement to additional compensation benefits for a dependent child. 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. § 20.104(c). REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1982 to July 1995 and from March 1996 to September 2003. This matter comes to the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a February 2016 rating decision of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office. Appellate review of an issue under the legacy system is initiated by filing a timely notice of disagreement (NOD) on VA Form 21-0958 and after a statement of the case (SOC) has been furnished, is completed by filing a timely substantive appeal. See 38 U.S.C. § 7105; 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.20, 19.21, 19.22. The specific determinations with which a claimant disagrees must be identified to the extent that a proper form is provided. 38 C.F.R. § 19.21(a)(4) (2020). Issus not identified on the form will not be considered appealed. Id. 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. § 20.104(c). By way of background, in November 2015, the AOJ informed the Veteran that it was proposing to reduce his compensation benefits due to the election of Chapter 35 education assistance benefits by his dependent child. In this regard, he was informed that pursuant to VA law where a child over 18, who is not permanently incapable of self-support, elects to receive Chapter 35 DEA benefits, the concurrent payment of VA compensation for that child is prohibited. 38 U.S.C.A. § 3562; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.667(f), 3.707, 21.3023. In a February 2016 determination, the AOJ reduced the Veteran's compensation benefits due to the election by his dependent child of Chapter 35 DEA benefits. The AOJ also informed the Veteran that the election of Chapter 35 DEA benefit had created an overpayment of his compensation benefits and that VA would notify him shortly as to the amount of the overpayment and how to pay it back. Later in February 2016, the Veteran received a letter from VA's Debt Management Center informing him that the amount of the overpayment of compensation benefits was $11,422,14 and that VA would begin withholding his VA benefits in May 2016 until the debt was recouped. In March 2016, the Veteran filed an NOD on VA Form 21-0958 identifying the issue on appeal as the overpayment of DEA benefits and other benefits. He also requested that an audit be performed showing the amount of DEA benefits that had been paid. Later in March 2016, the AOJ informed the Veteran that it had received his NOD and enclosed a SOC identifying the issue as "[the Veteran's contention of] entitlement to additional VA compensation benefits for dependent schoolchild..should be continued." The Veteran filed a substantive appeal in June 2017 characterizing the issue as "whether an overpayment of compensation benefits was properly created based on concurrent payment of VA dependent Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits and benefits received for dependent child." It is clear from the pertinent documents identified above that the Veteran's appeal was with VA's creation of an overpayment of compensation benefits in the amount of $11,422,14 and not with VA's decision to terminate additional VA compensation benefits for his dependent child. In this regard, the Veteran gave no indication in his March 2016 NOD or June 2017 substantive appeal that he disagreed with the termination of additional compensation benefits for a dependent child due to the concurrent receipt of Chapter 35 DEA benefits by that child; rather, he disagreed with the overpayment that had been created as a result of the concurrent payments. This is evident by his request in the March 2016 NOD for an audit of all payments that had been made. This finding is further bolstered by recent correspondence from the Veteran's representative in May 2021 requesting that a scheduled virtual hearing regarding this appeal be canceled and asking that the appeal (under this docket number) be terminated. He explained that the issue of overpayment and debt had already been resolved and he questioned why there existed two separate docket numbers for the same issue. See April 2017 AOJ decision granting the Veteran's request for waiver of overpayment in the amount of $11,422,14, and January 2018 Board decision dismissing the overpayment issue. Accordingly, the Board finds that the matter of entitlement to additional compensation benefits for a dependent child has not been perfected for appellate review and is not within the Board's jurisdiction. 38 U.S.C. § 7105(d)(3). Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. Kristin Haddock Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Shawkey, 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.