Citation Nr: A21017191 Decision Date: 10/25/21 Archive Date: 10/25/21 DOCKET NO. 210618-166906 DATE: October 25, 2021 REMANDED Whether the reduction in the Veteran's Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) disability compensation payment in June 2021 related to an adjustment for military retired pay was proper is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran had active service in the United States Navy from June 1961 to October 1980. In May 2021, the VA Regional Office (RO) issued a rating decision, in pertinent part, awarding service connection for a lumbar spine disability and for right and left lower extremity neuropathy. Compensable ratings were assigned. The Veteran was sent a letter on May 14, 2021, notifying him of this decision and listing his rate of pay, which included an indication of a Retired Pay Adjustment to his compensation effective November 2020 through May 2021, with an indication that no compensation benefits would be withheld beginning June 1, 2021. Another letter was sent to him on May 21, 2021 after a decision was made for additional benefits to be added for the Veteran's dependents. This letter listed different (higher) payment amounts than the prior letter, but also gave an indication that Retired Pay Adjustments would cease June 1, 2021. In June 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 10182 Notice of Disagreement along with a copy of a June 2021 bank statement. This bank statement shows the Veteran received significantly less as far as VA disability compensation in June 2021 as compared to the May 2021 notices. The Veteran's VA Form 10182 shows he disagrees with the RO's determination to reduce his VA compensation payments in June 2021. It appears from the evidence the Veteran submitted that a decision was made on the part of the RO to reduce the Veteran's VA compensation payments in June 2021. However, the RO did not provide the Veteran's with appropriate notice of this decision. The Veteran has the right to written notice of any decision made on his claim. 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a); 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a). The Board recognizes that because this appeal is within the Appeals Modernization Act (AMA) review system, ordinarily the Board can only consider the record as of the decision on appeal. See 38 C.F.R. §§ 20.202 (b)(1), (c)(1), 20.301. However, the Board must remand cases where there is a pre-decisional duty to assist error or correction of any error by the RO, other than a duty to assist error, in satisfying a regulatory or statutory duty, if correction of the error would have a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the Veteran's claim. See 38 C.F.R. § 20.802(a). Additionally, the standard of "no reasonable possibility" is not fulfilled under the "mere belief that the likelihood" of substantiating the claim is low. See Jones v. Wilkie, 918 F.3d 922, 926 (2019) (interpreting similar language from 38 U.S.C. § 5103A). The remand must specify the action to be taken by the RO. In this case, the Board finds the RO erred in its regulatory and statutory duty to notify the Veteran of any decision made in relation to his claim. The Board, thus, considers it a correctible error by the RO in satisfying its regulatory and statutory duties under 38 C.F.R. § 3.103(a) and 38 U.S.C. § 5104(a), and correction of this error raises a reasonable possibility of aiding in substantiating the Veteran's claim. Accordingly, remand under the AMA for these and similar circumstances remains appropriate for this specific action. The matter is REMANDED for the following action: Provide the Veteran with notice of the decision made that reduced his VA compensation benefits in June 2021, to include providing the Veteran with an accounting showing how his June 2021 VA compensation payment was calculated, and respond to his disagreement with the amount he was paid. MICHAEL E. KILCOYNE Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board A. Adamson, 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.