Citation Nr: 21066709 Decision Date: 11/01/21 Archive Date: 11/01/21 DOCKET NO. 14-17 993 DATE: November 1, 2021 ORDER The claim of entitlement to nonservice-connected burial benefits is dismissed. FINDINGS OF FACT 1. The Veteran died in June 2008. 2. The appellant, RM, died in October 2015. 3. A one-time burial allowance or reimbursement is not a periodic monetary benefit for which accrued benefits would be payable. 4. RM's widower, JM, is not eligible for substitution as the appellant in this claim. CONCLUSIONS OF LAW 1. JM is not a valid substitute for the deceased appellant and does not have standing to pursue this appeal. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101, 5121, 5121A; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.57, 3.1010. 2. Due to the death of the appellant, without a valid substitute appellant, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal. 38 U.S.C. § 7104; 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The Veteran served on active duty in the United States Army from July 1943 to January 1946. He died in June 2008. The Veteran's niece, RM, oversaw funeral arrangements for the Veteran and filed a claim for nonservice-connected burial benefits that was received by VA in April 2013, notably beyond the maximum allowable time limit for such a claim, 2 years after the burial of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1703(a). A December 2013 administrative decision denied the appellant's claim, the appellant then disagreed with this determination and the present appeal ensued. Then, in October 2015, during the process of this appeal, RM also died. Her surviving spouse, JM, requested to be substituted as the claimant in this appeal. VA Form 21-0847, October 2015. In August 2016, the agency of original jurisdiction then notified JM that the appeal would continue to be processed to completion, and although it is unclear, may have identified JM as a "verified substitute claimant" at that time. The appellant RM had requested a personal hearing before the Board in her May 2014 substantive appeal. The requested hearing was then scheduled with JM in August 2021, however, he failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. No request for postponement was received, and although internal notations indicate that he was having car trouble that prevented his attendance, which could constitute good cause arising under such circumstances that a timely request for postponement could not have been submitted prior to the scheduled hearing date, no further motion for a new hearing has been received. Therefore, the case is processed as though the request for a hearing was withdrawn and the Board now proceeds with the appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.704(d). The Board must further note that all questions of law and fact necessary to a decision under the laws affecting the provision of VA benefits are subject to review on appeal by the Board. 38 C.F.R. § 20.104. In other words, regardless of any action on substitution as an appellant in this appeal that may have been taken by the agency of original jurisdiction previously, the Board must determine whether substitution of an appellant is valid as a basis for appellate jurisdiction for adjudication at this time. However, for the reasons explained below, JM is found not to be a valid substitute appellant and, as such, the Board does not have jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this claim; the appeal must be dismissed due to the absence of an appellant with proper legal standing. The claim of entitlement to nonservice-connected burial benefits is dismissed. 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). In certain circumstances, another eligible person may be allowed to substitute for a deceased claimant, but only where a claim for "periodic monetary benefits" was pending before the agency of original jurisdiction or the Board when the claimant died. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010(a); see also Pappalardo v. Brown, 6 Vet. App. 63 (1993) (finding one-time payment for assistance for specially adapted housing does not qualify as a "periodic monetary benefit" and is not payable as an accrued benefit). Periodic is defined as "occurring or recurring at regular intervals," rather than a one-time payment. See Merriam-Webster dictionary, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/periodic (last visited Oct. 22, 2021). For this reason, a claim seeking a one-time burial allowance or reimbursement is not a periodic monetary benefit payable by VA. As such, substitution for a deceased claimant is not available for the benefit sought. (Continued on the next page) As the appellant RM is deceased and JM is not a valid substitute claimant in this appeal, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of this appeal, and the appeal must be dismissed. C.F.R. § 20.1302. David Gratz Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board K. McDonald, 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.