Citation Nr: 21071519 Decision Date: 11/30/21 Archive Date: 11/30/21 DOCKET NO. 18-35 307 DATE: November 30, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an apportionment in excess of $150 per month to the appellant on behalf of D.T., the Veteran's child, is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from September 1979 to April 1980. The appellant is the mother of the Veteran's child, D.T. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a January 2016 decision issued by a Regional Office (RO) of the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). This matter was previously remanded by the Board in February 2020 for further development. It now returns for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an apportionment in excess of $150 per month to the appellant on behalf of D.T., the Veteran's child, is remanded. The February 2020 Board remand found the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims had not been complied with, in particular, with providing the Veteran with the April 2018 Statement of the Case (SOC), and the content of the appellant's June 2018 substantive appeal. The resulting development following the Board remand does not reflect the April 2018 SOC, or the content of the appellant's June 2018 substantive appeal, have been provided to the Veteran. Further, a Board certification letter was not provided either party (the Veteran and the appellant). Accordingly, ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04 on remand, to include providing the Veteran with the April 2018 SOC, the content of the appellant's June 2018 substantive appeal, and each party with a Board certification letter at the appropriate juncture. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Additionally, the Board recognizes the record tends to reflect that D.T. turned 18 on December [REDACTED], 2018. However, record is not clear as to whether D.T. is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution. Further, an October 2019 VA memorandum reflects D.T. was receiving Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 during the appeal period at issue. However, a child age 18 or older who is capable of self-support is precluded concurrently receiving an apportionment of disability and Chapter 35 benefits. 38 C.F.R. § 21.3023(a). Accordingly, remand is warranted to notify the appellant of the requirements for a minor child to continue to receive an apportionment after the child turns 18 years old, to obtain the necessary documentation from the appellant or other appropriate educational institution to assist in determining if D.T. was/is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution after reaching the age of 18 years. Remand is also warranted to obtain any copies of any claims and decisions regarding D.T.'s receipt of DEA Chapter 35 benefits, to include documentation of amount of DEA Chapter 35 benefits received during the appeal period at issue. This matter is REMANDED for the following actions: 1. Ensure full compliance with the contested claims procedures outlined in 38 C.F.R. §§ 19.100-02, 20.500-04. Specifically: (a.) Document in the record the Veteran is provided with the April 2018 SOC, and (b.) Document in the record the Veteran is provided with the content of the appellant's June 2018 substantive appeal, with notice of his right to request a hearing. 2. Notify the appellant of the requirements for a minor child to continue to receive an apportionment after the child turns 18 years old. Send the appellant all necessary forms, such as report of school attendance. 3. Obtain the necessary documentation from the appellant or other appropriate educational institution to assist in determining if D.T. was/is pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution after reaching the age of 18 years (but not after reaching the age of 23 years) as well as any decisions regarding D.T.'s receipt of DEA Chapter 35 benefits, to include documentation of any amount of DEA Chapter 35 benefits received during the appeal period at issue. 4. Readjudicate the issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment in excess of $150 per month to the appellant on behalf of the Veteran's child, D.T. Then, issue a SSOC and certification letter to both parties in compliance with the procedures for simultaneously contested claims, and return the case to the Board, if otherwise in order. M. C. GRAHAM Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board M. Espinoza, 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.