Citation Nr: 21071905 Decision Date: 12/01/21 Archive Date: 12/01/21 DOCKET NO. 17-28 301 DATE: December 1, 2021 REMANDED Entitlement to an increased apportionment in excess of $300 per month to the appellant on behalf of the Veteran's children, C.R. and J.R., is remanded. REASONS FOR REMAND The Veteran served on active duty from December 2000 to August 2010. The appellant is the mother of the Veteran's children, C.R. and J.R. This matter comes before the Board of Veterans' Appeals (Board) on appeal of a September 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 2019 and April 2021 for further development. It now returns for appellate review. 1. Entitlement to an increased apportionment in excess of $300 per month to the appellant on behalf of the Veteran's children, C.R. and J.R., is remanded. The February 2019 and April 2021 Board remands found the rules regarding simultaneously contested claims had not been complied with, in particular, with providing the Veteran the March 2017 Statement of the Case (SOC), and the content of the appellant's May 2017 substantive appeal. The resulting development following each Board remand does not reflect the March 2017 SOC, or the content of the appellant's May 2017 substantive appeal, have been provided to the Veteran. Further, the most recent June 2021 Supplemental Statement of the Case (SSOC) was only provided to the appellant and the Veteran's representative, but not the Veteran himself. Moreover, the June 2021 SSOC to the appellant was returned as undeliverable. Also, 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 March 2017 SOC, the content of the appellant's May 2017 substantive appeal, each party with the June 2021 SSOC, and each party with a Board certification letter at the appropriate juncture. Stegall v. West, 11 Vet. App. 268 (1998). Further, the February 2019 and April 2021 Board remands directed the Agency of Original Jurisdiction obtain information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding the Veteran's monthly SSA income. Following each remand, the AOJ obtained a copy of the Veteran's SSA medical records; however, the Veteran's SSA income information was not obtained. Accordingly, remand is again warranted to obtain information from the Social Security Administration (SSA) regarding the Veteran's monthly SSA income. Finally, the Board recognizes the record tends to reflect that J.R. turned 18 on August 21, 2018 and C.R. turned 18 on December 28, 2019. However, record is not clear as to whether either J.R. or C.R. are pursuing a course of instruction at an approved educational institution. Further, a December 2019 VA memorandum reflects J.R. was receiving Dependents' Educational Assistance (DEA) benefits under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35 during the appeal period. The record does not clearly reflect when J.R. may have received Chapter 35 benefits 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 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 J.R. and/or C.R. were/are 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 J.R.'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 March 2017 SOC, the content of the appellant's May 2017 substantive appeal with notice of his right to request a hearing, and June 2021 SSOC; and (b.) Document in the record that the appellant is provided with a copy of the June 2021 SSOC. 2. Contact the SSA to determine all payments made to the Veteran during the appeal period at issue and prepare an accounting documenting his SSA income received during the appeal period at issue. Please note that merely obtaining records from SSA does not satisfy this remand directive. 3. 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. 4. Obtain the necessary documentation from the appellant or other appropriate educational institution to assist in determining if J.R. and/or C.R. were/are 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 J.R.'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. 5. Readjudicate the issue of entitlement to an increased apportionment in excess of $300 per month to the appellant on behalf of the Veteran's children, C.R. and J.R. 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.