Citation Nr: 21069189 Decision Date: 11/17/21 Archive Date: 11/17/21 DOCKET NO. 17-26 080 DATE: November 17, 2021 ISSUES 1. Entitlement to service connection for hypertension (HTN), to include as secondary to the service-connected coronary artery disease (CAD) and to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents. 2. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by syncope, to include as secondary to the service-connected CAD. ORDER Entitlement to service connection for HTN, to include as secondary to the service-connected CAD and to include as due to exposure to herbicide agents is dismissed due to the death of the Veteran. Entitlement to service connection for a disability manifested by syncope, to include as secondary to the service-connected CAD, is dismissed due to the death of the Veteran. FINDING OF FACT In October 2021 the Board was notified that the Veteran died in October 2021. CONCLUSION OF LAW Because the Veteran has died, and there is no substituted appellant for this appeal, the Board has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the merits of the claim. 38U.S.C. §7104 (a); 38C.F.R. §20.1302; but see 38U.S.C. §5121A. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from July 1965 to July 1969, to include service in the Republic of Vietnam. The Veteran died in October 2021. This matter is before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal from a rating decision issued in March 2015 by a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Regional Office (RO). When this case was most recently before the Board in December 2019, it was decided in part and remanded in part for additional evidentiary development. Subsequently, in an April 2020 rating decision, service connection for glaucoma was granted with an evaluation of 10 percent effective July 13, 2013. Accordingly, this issue is no longer on appeal. Unfortunately, the Veteran died in October 2021 during the pendency of the appeal. 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). This appeal on the merits has become moot by virtue of the death of the Veteran and must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 38 U.S.C. § 7104 (a) (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 20.1302 (2017). A review of the record reflects that J.A. submitted a substitution request in November 2021, pending adjudication. The Board does not have jurisdiction to make determinations regarding basic eligibility to substitute in the first instance. In reaching this determination, the Board intimates no opinion as to the merits of this appeal or to any derivative claim brought by a survivor of the Veteran. 38 C.F.R. § 20.1106 (2017). The Board's dismissal of this appeal does not affect the right of an eligible person to file a request to be substituted as the appellant for purposes of processing the claim to completion. Such request must be filed not later than one year after the date of the appellant's death. See 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (West 2014); 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010 (b) (2017). A person eligible for substitution includes "a living person who would be eligible to receive accrued benefits due to the claimant under section 5121(a) of this title...." 38 U.S.C. § 5121A (West 2014); see 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010 (a) (2017). An eligible party seeking substitution in an appeal that has been dismissed by the Board due to the death of the claimant should file a request for substitution with the VA office from which the claim originated (listed on the first page of this decision). 38 C.F.R. § 3.1010 (b) (2017). MICHAEL A. PAPPAS Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board R.M.K., 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.