Citation Nr: A21018450 Decision Date: 11/18/21 Archive Date: 11/18/21 DOCKET NO. 211008-190917 DATE: November 18, 2021 ORDER Entitlement to an effective date earlier than March 12, 2020, for the addition of the Veteran's spouse D.B. as his dependent spouse for additional dependency benefits is denied. FINDING OF FACT The Veteran informed the Department of Veterans' Affairs (VA) of his marriage to his spouse D.B. on March 12, 2020. CONCLUSION OF LAW The criteria for an effective date earlier than March 12, 2020, for the addition of the Veteran's spouse D.B. as his dependent spouse for additional dependency benefits have not been met. 38 U.S.C. §§ 101(31), 1115, 5107, 5124; 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.1(j), 3.4, 3.204, 3.205, 3.216. REASONS AND BASES FOR FINDING AND CONCLUSION The Veteran served on active duty from March 1953 to October 1979. This appeal comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) from a July 2021 notification letter of the VA Regional Office (RO). In June 2021, the Veteran submitted a VA Form 20-0995, Decision Review Request: Supplemental Claim, and requested readjudication of the issue most recently addressed in an April 2020 notification letter. In July 2021, the agency of original jurisdiction (AOJ) issued the supplemental claim decision on appeal, which implicitly found that new and relevant evidence had been received and denied the claim based on the evidence of record at the time of that decision. The implicit finding that new and relevant evidence had been received to readjudicate the claim is a favorable finding by the AOJ, and the Board will proceed to the address the claim on the merits. See 38 U.S.C. § 5104A; 38 C.F.R. § 3.104(c). In the October 2021 VA Form 10182, Decision Review Request: Board Appeal, the Veteran elected the Direct Review docket. Therefore, the Board may consider only the evidence of record at the time of the July 2021 AOJ decision on appeal. 38 C.F.R. § 20.301. Analysis In the October 2021 Board Appeal, the Veteran contends that he was married at all times except from February 2013 to September 2014. The Veteran's previous spouse died in January 2013, as noted by the RO in the July 2021 notification letter. Therefore, the Veteran contends that VA should accept his marriage to D.B. from October 2014, the date of their marriage as confirmed in the marriage certificate received in June 2021. An award of additional compensation on account of dependents based on the establishment of a disability rating in the percentage evaluation specified by law for the purpose shall be payable from the effective date of such rating; but only if proof of dependents is received within one year from the date of notification of such rating action. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b)(3). The effective date for additional compensation for a dependent spouse will be the latest of the following dates: (1) the date of the marriage, if the claim is received within one year of the marriage; (2) the date notice is received of the dependent spouse's existence; (3) the date dependency arises; (4) the effective date of a qualifying disability rating provided evidence of dependency is received within one year of notification of such action; or (5) the date of commencement of a veteran's award. 38 U.S.C. § 5110(f); 38 C.F.R. § 3.401(b). The earliest that the additional award of compensation for a dependent spouse may be paid to the Veteran is the first day of the month following the effective date. 38 C.F.R. § 3.31. The law provides for the rates of disability compensation, and for payment of additional compensation for dependents of veterans who are at least 30 percent disabled. 38 U.S.C. §§ 1114(c), 1115, 1134, 1135. The Veteran was, at all times relevant to this issue and the period of time in question, in receipt of a combined rating of at least 30 percent to receive additional compensation for a spouse. Statements from a veteran are generally satisfactory and accepted as proof of change in dependency status. 38 C.F.R. §§ 3.204, 3.213. The provisions of 38 C.F.R. § 3.204 provide that VA will accept for purposes of determining benefits under laws administered by VA the statement of a claimant as proof of dissolution of a marriage, provided the statement contains the month, year, and place of the event, and the full name and relationship of the other person to the claimant. The facts in this appeal as it relates to the Veteran's spouse, D.B., are not in dispute. In a June 2021 statement, the Veteran contends that he did not report his marriage to D.B. in 2014 because he was unaware that he received additional VA compensation for a spouse. The Veteran first notified VA of his marriage to D.B. in a March 2020 VA Form 21-686c Application Request To Add And/Or Remove Dependents. The Veteran does not contend that he informed VA of his marriage earlier than March 2020. Notices sent to the Veteran in 1994 and thereafter clearly notified him that he was in receipt of additional payment for his dependent spouse. See September 1994 letter (stating, "Your monthly rate includes an additional allowance for your spouse."); February 1996 letter (stating, "The compensation you receive for your service-connected disability includes an additional amount for your spouse and/or children. You are responsible for reporting any changes in the number of your dependents."); January 1999 letter (stating, "We're paying you additional benefits for your spouse,[]. Let us know right away if there is any change in the status of your dependents."); and January 2012 letter (stating, "The compensation you receive for your service-connected disability includes an additional amount for your spouse and/or children. You are responsible for reporting any changes in the number of your dependents."). Further, in correspondences sent from February 1996 to February 2020, the Veteran was again informed of this fact and of his responsibility to immediately report any change in the status of his dependents. Although the January 2020 notification letters were returned as undeliverable, VA resent the letter in February 2020 to the Veteran's updated address and it was not returned as undeliverable and the Veteran responded to the letter. For VA compensation purposes, notice means written notice sent to a claimant or payee at his or her latest address of record. 38 C.F.R. § 3.1(q). The Veteran complied with VA's request of status updates as to his dependents by completing VA Form 21-0538, Status of Dependents Questionnaire received in February 1996, February 2004, January 2012, in which he reported that he was still married to his prior spouse. Therefore, the information clearly notified the Veteran that he was in receipt of payment for his dependent spouse and of his responsibility to immediately report any change in the status of his dependents. In response to the February 2020 notification letter, the Veteran submitted a completed VA Form 21-0538, Mandatory Status of Dependents in March 2020 in which he reported his marriage to his current spouse D.B. for the first time. Thus, the Board finds that there is no plausible argument in support of any asserted failure to notify him of his responsibility to immediately report any change in the status of his dependents. Further, the Veteran's ignorance of VA regulations is not a defense. The U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims has held that persons dealing with the Government are charged with knowledge of Federal statutes and lawfully promulgated agency regulations, regardless of actual knowledge or hardship resulting from innocent ignorance. See Morris v. Derwinski, 1 Vet. App. 260, 265 (1991), citing Fed. Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384-85 (1947); see also Velez v. West, 11 Vet. App. 148, 156- 57 (1998); see also Dent v. McDonald, 27 Vet. App. 362, 382 (2015) (a beneficiary is charged with knowing the rules governing compensation). Thus, even if the Veteran may have been unaware of VA regulations and law, he was necessarily charged with knowledge of the regulation. Accordingly, as the preponderance of the evidence is against an effective date earlier than March 12, 2020, for the addition of dependent spouse, D.B., the benefit of the doubt doctrine is not for application in that regard and the claim is denied. 38 U.S.C. § 5107(b); 38 C.F.R. § 4.3. Finally, in the October 2021 Board appeal, the Veteran appears to argue that he does not agree with repaying benefits paid to him while he was married to D.B., however, the issue as to the validity of any overpayment is not on appeal before the Board, as the Debt Management Center has not yet issued a decision regarding this issue. Thus, there can be no appeal as to this issue at the present time. A. P. SIMPSON Veterans Law Judge Board of Veterans' Appeals Attorney for the Board Sarah Campbell, 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.